United States v. Benjamin Carreon-Ocampo , 543 F. App'x 654 ( 2013 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50610
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-02602-BEN-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BENJAMIN CARREON-OCAMPO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Carreon-Ocampo 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).
Carreon-Ocampo contends that the district court procedurally erred at
sentencing. Because Carreon-Ocampo did not raise these procedural issues in the
district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan,
608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court did not plainly err. It was
permissible for the district court to consider Carreon-Ocampo’s prior sentences for
immigration offenses, and the court considered all of the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the Sentencing Guidelines, and adequately explained
the reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Higuera-Llamos, 574 F.3d 1206,
1211-12 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that it was proper to consider whether prior
sentence for immigration offense served as an adequate deterrent when
determining appropriate sentence for new immigration offense).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 30-month
sentence. The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including
Carreon-Ocampo’s repeated illegal entries into the United States and the need for
deterrence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United
States v. Orozco-Acosta, 607 F.3d 1156, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing
Amezcua-Vasquez where higher sentence was necessary to deter defendant from
2
subsequent re-entry); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908-09
(9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that the “weight to be given the various factors in a
particular case is for the discretion of the district court” and holding that the district
court did not place undue weight on need for deterrence where defendant
repeatedly entered the United States illegally).
AFFIRMED.
3