United States v. Pedro Mauricio-Trujillo

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50339
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-04474-H
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PEDRO MAURICIO-TRUJILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Mauricio-Trujillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
attempted 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).
Mauricio-Trujillo contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3) by failing to resolve an alleged factual dispute
concerning his motive for attempting to reenter the United States. The district
court did not violate Rule 32 because there was no factual dispute to resolve; the
only issue was the weight to be given to Mauricio-Trujillo’s alleged motive. See
United States v. Petri, 731 F.3d 833, 841 (9th Cir. 2013) (Rule 32 does not require
district court to address assertions that are not factual objections to the PSR).
Mauricio-Trujillo next contends that the district court procedurally erred by
(1) failing to respond to his argument regarding his reason for reentry, and
(2) imposing sentence based on clearly erroneous facts. The record reflects that the
district court adequately addressed Mauricio-Trujillo’s argument concerning his
motivations for reentering, and that it did not base its sentencing decision upon the
finding that Mauricio-Trujillo was an economic migrant.
Finally, Mauricio-Trujillo contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Mauricio-
Trujillo’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Mauricio-Trujillo’s prior
2 14-50339
conviction for alien smuggling, two prior deportations, and his numerous
additional encounters with immigration officials. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-50339