FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10427
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:12-cr-02236-RCC-
HCE
v.
JORGE SOTO-CASTELO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 8, 2014**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: D. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Soto-Castelo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 12-level sentencing enhancement and the 36-month term of supervised release
imposed for his illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Because the parties
*
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).
are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those
facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We affirm.
Conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.337 qualifies as a conviction for a
“drug trafficking offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). United States v.
Benitez-Perez, 367 F.3d 1200, 1204 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the district court
correctly imposed a 12-level sentencing enhancement based on Soto-Castelo’s
prior conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.337.
The district court acted within its discretion to impose a 36-month term of
supervised release. The district court was authorized to impose a term of
supervised release of not more than three years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2).
Supervised release is appropriate when “it would provide an added measure of
deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances of a particular
case.” USSG § 5D 1.1(c) cmt. 5. The district court did not abuse its discretion
because the 36-month term of supervised release is reasonable in light of the
district court’s explanation that Soto-Castelo had been previously deported and that
this was Soto-Castelo’s second prosecution for re-entry after a deportation. See
United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
2