NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50115
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02856-BEN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ARMANDO BAUTISTA-ESPINOZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Armando Bautista-Espinoza appeals the 24-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for improper entry by an alien, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1325. 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.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Bautista-Espinoza argues that the district court procedurally erred by relying
on his prior conviction for vehicular manslaughter to the exclusion of all other 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the mitigating facts. 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 court considered a range of
section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Bautista-Espinoza’s sentencing arguments,
and sufficiently explained its determination that an upward variance was
warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
Bautista-Espinoza also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is
substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is not substantively
unreasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including Bautista-Espinoza’s criminal history. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-50115