FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 08 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50045
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01070-PA-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
URIEL VIDAL CARDENAS, AKA Uriel
Cardenas, AKA Uriel Ocampo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 15, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Uriel Cardenas appeals the district court’s imposition of a 33-month term of
incarceration and a three-year term of supervised release, following his conviction
for being a removed 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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Cardenas argues for the first time on appeal that the Government breached
the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement by implicitly arguing for a sentence greater
than that which the parties had agreed to recommend. We hold that there was no
plain error because, even assuming breach, Cardenas has not shown that the
alleged error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar,
718 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2013). Furthermore, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea agreement. The court adequately
explained its decision to reject the agreement. See United States v. Harris, 679
F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2012).
Cardenas also challenges for the first time the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of his term of imprisonment. Cardenas’s procedural challenge fails
under the plain error standard because there is no reasonable probability that he
would have received a different sentence absent the district court’s alleged errors.
See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). In addition,
considering the totality of the circumstances, including Cardenas’s criminal history
and prior deportations, the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The
weight to be given the various [§ 3553(a)] factors in a particular case is for the
discretion of the district court.”).
2
The district court did not plainly err by imposing a three-year term of
supervised release. The court provided a sufficiently “specific and particularized
explanation” of its decision to impose supervised release. United States v.
Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012).
Finally, the district court’s written judgment need not be amended. Addition
of the word “ordinance” to the written judgment merely clarified an ambiguity in
the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v. Napier,
463 F.3d 1040, 1043 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
3