United States v. Alexander De Leon , 520 F. App'x 595 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAY 30 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-50444
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00249-JFW-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ALEXANDER GUERRA DE LEON,
    AKA Eddy Alexander Deleon, AKA
    Alexander Eddie Guerra,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted April 11, 2013
    Pasadena, California
    Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SIMON, District Judge.**
    Defendant Alexander Guerra De Leon (Guerra) was found illegally in the
    United States after having previously been deported, and was charged with
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Michael H. Simon, District Judge for the U.S. District
    Court for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
    violating 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a). Guerra pled guilty without the benefit of a fast-track
    plea agreement, and was sentenced to twenty-four months imprisonment and to
    three years supervised release. Guerra has timely appealed his sentence. We
    affirm the sentence of the district court.
    First, the district court did not plainly err in commenting that Guerra would
    benefit from rehabilitative treatment in prison. Tapia permits the district court to
    “discuss[] the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of
    specific treatment or training programs,” and the district court’s comments did not
    exceed these permissible bounds by in any way indicating that it modified its
    sentence so as to provide Guerra with prison rehabilitation. Tapia v. United States,
    
    131 S. Ct. 2382
    , 2392–95 (2011).
    Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Guerra to
    a twenty-four month sentence, which falls at the low end of the applicable
    Guidelines range. The district court adequately and fully considered the section
    3553 factors in determining this sentence. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). That this
    sentence is inconsistent with the sentence of a defendant offered a fast-track plea
    agreement does not create an unwarranted sentencing disparity. See United States
    v. Marcial-Santiago, 
    447 F.3d 715
    , 717–18 (9th Cir. 2006) (rejecting the argument
    that the defendants’ sentences were impermissibly inconsistent with the sentence of
    2
    similarly-situated defendants who received fast-track dispositions); cf. United
    States v. Treadwell, 
    593 F.3d 990
    , 1011–12 (9th Cir. 2010) (asserting that “[t]he
    mere fact that Treadwell can point to a defendant convicted at a different time of a
    different fraud and sentenced to a term of imprisonment shorter than Treadwell’s
    does not create an ‘unwarranted’ sentencing disparity”).
    Finally, the district court did not plainly err by imposing a three-year term of
    supervised release. Because the district court could have reasonably concluded
    that supervised release “would provide an added measure of deterrence and
    protection [of the public] based on the facts and circumstances of [Guerra’s]
    particular case,” supervised release was here appropriate under the Sentencing
    Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1, cmt. n.5.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-50444

Citation Numbers: 520 F. App'x 595

Judges: Bybee, Rawlinson, Simon

Filed Date: 5/30/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023