United States v. Daniel Rivas-Anaya ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10278
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00345-JGZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DANIEL RIVAS-ANAYA, a.k.a. Daniel
Anaya Rivera, a.k.a. Daniel Rivas Anaya,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Rivas-Anaya appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 45-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rivas-Anaya claims that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of his cultural assimilation and the mitigating factors, and because the Guidelines
range allegedly overstated both his criminal history and the seriousness of his
offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rivas-Anaya’s
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Rivas-Anaya’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; 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.”).
Rivas-Anaya next contends that this case must be remanded to strike the
reference in the judgment to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). We reject this contention
because the judgment unambiguously reflects that Rivas-Anaya was convicted of
only one punishable offense pursuant to section 1326(a). See United States v.
Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-10278