NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUN 16 2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50441 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:14-cr-00739-RGK-1
v.
JUAN MANUEL MARTINEZ MEMORANDUM*
GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 6, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, SACK,*** and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Robert D. Sack, United States Circuit Judge for the Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
Defendant Juan Manuel Martinez Gonzalez appeals his conviction for illegal
reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and challenges his 51-month sentence.
We affirm.
1. As the government concedes, the 2013 expedited removal proceedings
violated Defendant’s due process rights because he received the Notice of Intent to
Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order at about the same time as the Final
Administrative Removal Order, thus depriving him of the 10-day rebuttal period
provided by 8 C.F.R. § 238.1(b)(2)(i). But, for his due process argument to
succeed, Defendant must show prejudice. United States v. Valdez-Novoa, 780
F.3d 906, 914 (9th Cir. 2015). Contrary to his argument, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement did not act ultra vires; it had the authority to enter a Final
Administrative Removal Order, but simply failed to follow the proper procedure.
In that circumstance, Defendant still must show prejudice. See Kohli v. Gonzales,
473 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that, to argue successfully that an
alleged defect in notice compromised the immigration court’s jurisdiction, the
petitioner had to show an effect on her rights). Defendant suffered no prejudice
because his conviction of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) was categorically a
"crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) and, therefore, an "aggravated felony"
for immigration purposes. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F); United States v. Jimenez-
2
Arzate, 781 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Thus, he had no
effective rebuttal to offer.
2. The district court’s limitation on cross-examination of Officer Sarte
concerning Agent Doe’s disciplinary history was not an abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Fryberg, 854 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing standard
of review). Even if the ruling was erroneous, any error did not materially affect the
verdict. See United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1099 (9th Cir.
2005) (discussing harmlessness). Agent Doe’s disciplinary history was not
particularly probative on the issue of his accuracy or truthfulness, and significant
other evidence corroborated Agent Doe’s statement that Defendant was not a
United States citizen. Among other things, Defendant’s birth certificate showed
that he was born in Mexico, he listed his nationality as "Mexican" on two detainee
request forms, and he referred to Mexico as "my country." Because the excluded
evidence was only minimally probative, and because Defendant had other means to
try to show that he was a United States citizen, the court’s ruling did not deprive
Defendant of his right to present a defense.
3. Because Defendant failed to challenge the procedural reasonableness of
his sentence at the district court, we review only for plain error. United States v.
Doe, 705 F.3d 1134, 1153 (9th Cir. 2013). The record shows that the sentencing
3
court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and that the court considered and
responded to Defendant’s arguments. The district court’s explanation of the
sentence imposed was not plainly erroneous.
4. Finally, Defendant argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the Sentencing Commission later reduced the applicable Guidelines range
for Defendant’s crime. Notwithstanding the subsequent revision, the question for
us is whether the court abused its discretion in light of the facts in the record
bearing on the statutory sentencing factors. United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864,
871–73 (9th Cir. 2009). We find no abuse of discretion, in light of the reasons the
court gave for the sentence selected and in light of its departure downward for
cultural assimilation.
AFFIRMED.
4