United States v. Jose Quintero-Sanchez , 617 F. App'x 801 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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