United States v. Victor Flores , 551 F. App'x 386 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10145
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00101-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
VICTOR RODOLFO HERNANDEZ
FLORES, a.k.a. Rudolfo Hernandez
Florez, a.k.a. Uriel Perez Orosco, a.k.a.
Ruben Lopez Orozco, a.k.a. Juan
Hernandez Ramirez, a.k.a. Juan Rodolfo
Ramirez, a.k.a. Filiberto Villegas-Salgado,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Victor Rodolfo Hernandez Flores appeals from the district court’s judgment
*
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).
and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hernandez Flores contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to respond to his
requests for a downward variance and cultural assimilation departure, and to
adequately explain the sentence. 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 adequately considered the section 3553(a)
sentencing factors, responded to Hernandez Flores’s arguments for a variance and
departure, and sufficiently explained the sentence imposed. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
We do not consider Hernandez Flores’s argument that the district court
failed to properly calculate the Guidelines range and instead created a Guidelines
range that would encompass the 48-month sentence, because it was raised for the
first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100,
1105 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-10145