FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50251
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00851-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAVIER ROJAS-ROBLES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Javier Rojas-Robles appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 22-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release
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.
*
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).
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Rojas-Robles contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing
by (i) using his prior illegal reentry sentence as a benchmark, (ii) failing to
consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and his mitigating
arguments, (iii) failing adequately to explain the sentence imposed, and (iv)
relying on clearly erroneous facts in fashioning the sentence. The record reflects
that the district court used the advisory Guidelines range, rather than Rojas-
Robles’s prior sentence, as the initial benchmark. In addition, the court adequately
considered Rojas-Robles’s mitigating arguments and the section 3553(a) factors,
sufficiently explained the sentence and its basis for imposing a term of supervised
release, and did not choose the sentence based on clearly erroneous facts. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Rojas-Robles next contends that his above-Guidelines custodial sentence
and the three-year term of supervised release are substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The custodial sentence and supervised release term are substantively
reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a)
sentencing factors. See id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-50251