-
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 01 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10083 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00276-RCC- BGM-1 v. SAMUEL ANTONIO HERNANDEZ- MEMORANDUM* CASTRO, a.k.a. Samuel Hernandez- Castro, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 30, 2016** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges. Samuel Hernandez-Castro appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, 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). Hernandez-Castro contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by not addressing his argument in mitigation and failing to explain the reasons for his sentence. Because Hernandez-Castro did not object on these grounds below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan,
608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Dallman,
533 F.3d 755, 761- 62 (9th Cir. 2008). The record shows that the district court listened to defense counsel’s mitigation argument as well as Hernandez-Castro’s own statement regarding his prior conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. The court calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a sentence at the lower end of that range. Hernandez-Castro offers no evidence or argument that there is a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been lower if the court had explicitly addressed his mitigation argument and provided more explanation for the sentence. Thus, Hernandez-Castro has not shown that his substantial rights were affected, and so he has not met the plain error test. See
Dallman, 533 F.3d at 761-62. AFFIRMED. 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 15-10083
Judges: Hug, Farris, Canby
Filed Date: 4/1/2016
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024