United States v. Arnulfo Gonzalez , 594 F. App'x 348 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50385
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-01608-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ARNULFO ARELLANO GONZALEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Arnulfo Arellano Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
being a removed 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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Arellano Gonzalez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by
improperly relying on a prior sentence imposed for the same offense as a benchmark
for the instant case. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The
record reflects that the district court properly considered the applicable section
3553(a) factors, including Arellano Gonzalez’s criminal and immigration history.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to
show that it has considered them.”); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez,
587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a
particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, the district
court’s consideration of Arellano Gonzalez’s prior sentence for the same offense
was not improper. See United States v. Higuera-Llamos, 574 F.3d 1206, 1211-12
(9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-50385