United States v. Jose Quintero-Sanchez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 14-10470
14-10471
Plaintiff - Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 4:07-cr-00056-RCC
v. 4:13-cr-02151-RCC
JOSE ESTEBAN QUINTERO-SANCHEZ, MEMORANDUM*
a.k.a. Jose Esteban Quintero, a.k.a. Jose
Quintero-Sanchez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Jose Esteban Quintero-Sanchez appeals from
the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed
following his jury-trial conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1326, and the consecutive 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Quintero-Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider and discuss his sentencing arguments and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record
reflects that the district court considered Quintero-Sanchez’s arguments and the
applicable section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Quintero-Sanchez next contends that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court allegedly focused on a stale criminal
conviction and failed to account for the mitigating factors. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in imposing Quintero-Sanchez’s sentence. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The aggregate within-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances, including Quintero-Sanchez’s criminal and
immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-10470 & 14-10471