United States v. Ricardo Davalos-Castillo , 693 F. App'x 551 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10488
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00348-GMN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RICARDO DAVALOS-CASTILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Davalos-Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 27-month custodial sentence and one-year term of supervised
release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien
found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Davalos-Castillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by
relying on clearly erroneous facts regarding his likelihood of reentering the United
States and his criminal history. He also contends that the court failed to calculate
the applicable Guidelines range for his supervised release term and erroneously
believed that the Guidelines recommended imposition of a term of supervised
release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The court’s
factual findings and inferences were supported by the record. Moreover, the
record reflects that the court adopted the presentence report’s calculation of the
Guidelines range for supervised release and understood that the Guidelines
recommend against imposition of supervised release for a deportable alien.
Davalos-Castillo also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of the pre-indictment delay, his cultural assimilation, and
other mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 27-month sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including Davalos-Castillo’s immigration and criminal history.
See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Furthermore, the term of supervised release is
2 16-10488
substantively reasonable in light of the need for deterrence. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1
cmt. n.5; United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-10488