United States v. Roberto Solis-Cabralles ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10316
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00265-KJM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERTO SOLIS-CABRALLES, a.k.a.
David Contreras, a.k.a. Javier Zasueta,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Solis-Cabralles appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for
two counts of being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Solis-Cabralles contends that the district court erred by denying him a two-
level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1(a), because his pre-trial statements demonstrated his acceptance of
responsibility. The parties dispute the standard of review that applies to this claim.
Contrary to Solis-Cabralles’s argument, the district court did not misapprehend the
law with respect to the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. We therefore
review the district court’s finding that Solis-Cabralles did not accept responsibility
for his offense for clear error. See United States v. Garrido, 596 F.3d 613, 617
(9th Cir. 2010).
The district court considered Solis-Cabralles’s pre-trial statements but
denied the adjustment based on the record as a whole, including Solis-Cabralles’s
conflicting statements to immigration authorities and his suggestion that his
presence in the United States was involuntary. The district court did not clearly err
in denying the adjustment. See United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d 1166, 1169-70
(9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-10316