United States v. Pedro Cuevas-Pereda

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Pedro Cuevas-Pereda

546 F. App'x 679

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 2013

Docket12-50334

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 546 F. App'x 679 (United States v. Pedro Cuevas-Pereda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Pedro Cuevas-Pereda, 546 F. App'x 679 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Cuevas-Pereda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cuevas-Pereda contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the Guidelines range and explain sufficiently the sentence. Because defendant did not object to these alleged procedural errors, we review for plain error, see United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir.2008), and find none. The record reflects that the district court calculated the Guidelines range in accordance with the recommendation in the plea agreement, but then varied upward to impose the 57-month sentence. Further, it adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Cuevas-Pereda also argues that the district court failed to address his mitigating arguments at sentencing. The record reflects that the district court considered and addressed Cuevas-Pereda’s mitigating arguments and concluded that they did not warrant a lower sentence.

Finally, Cuevas-Pereda contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his impoverished upbringing and the age of his prior conviction for transporting aliens. The district court did hot abuse its discretion in imposing Cuevas-Pereda’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 *680 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Cuevas-Pereda’s criminal history. See id.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Cuevas-Pereda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cuevas-Pereda contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the Guidelines range and explain sufficiently the sentence. Because defendant did not object to these alleged procedural errors, we review for plain error, see United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir.2008), and find none. The record reflects that the district court calculated the Guidelines range in accordance with the recommendation in the plea agreement, but then varied upward to impose the 57-month sentence. Further, it adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Cuevas-Pereda also argues that the district court failed to address his mitigating arguments at sentencing. The record reflects that the district court considered and addressed Cuevas-Pereda’s mitigating arguments and concluded that they did not warrant a lower sentence.

Finally, Cuevas-Pereda contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his impoverished upbringing and the age of his prior conviction for transporting aliens. The district court did hot abuse its discretion in imposing Cuevas-Pereda’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 *680 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Cuevas-Pereda’s criminal history. See id.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 F. App'x 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pedro-cuevas-pereda-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack