United States v. Leopoldo Arteaga-Reyna

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10661
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01290-RCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEOPOLDO ARTEAGA-REYNA, a.k.a.
Leopoldo Reyna Arteaga,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Linda R. Reade, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 18, 2014***
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Leopoldo Arteaga-Reyna appeals the district court’s imposition of a 41-
month sentence following his guilty plea to reentry after deportation, in violation
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arteaga-Reyna contends that the district court erred in applying a 16-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because his prior conviction
under California Penal Code § 211 is not a crime of violence. Arteaga-Reyna’s
argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Flores-Mejia, 687 F.3d 1213, 1214-
16 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 958 (2013).
Arteaga-Reyna also alleges that his 41-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of his history and characteristics. We review the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Autery,
555 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2009). There is an abuse of discretion when the
district court “makes an error of law, when it rests its decision on clearly erroneous
findings of fact, or when we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the
district court committed a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Ressam, 679
F.3d 1069, 1086 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). We find no abuse of discretion in this case because the 41-month
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-10661