FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10341
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00007-RM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DOMINGO MATIAS-PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Domingo Matias-Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 54-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
reentry of a removed alien, 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.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Matias-Perez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
improperly considering the fact that he rejected a fast-track plea agreement, failing
to address his mitigating arguments, and failing to explain the sentence adequately.
We review for plain error, United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court
considered Matias-Perez’s mitigating arguments and explained the sentence
sufficiently. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc). Moreover, the record does not support Matias-Perez’s contention that the
district court improperly considered Matias-Perez’s rejection of the fast-track
agreement or that it based the sentence on a policy of imposing harsher sentences
for illegal reentry defendants who reject such agreements.
Matias-Perez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court failed to give appropriate weight to the mitigating factors.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Matias-Perez’s sentence.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors
and the totality of the circumstances, including Matias-Perez’s criminal and
immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Guiterrez-Sanchez,
587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a
2 15-10341
particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-10341