United States v. Samuel Hernandez-Castro ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 01 2016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