NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10231
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:16-cr-02040-CKJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FERNANDO SANDOVAL-GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Sandoval-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 20-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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Sandoval-Garcia contends that the district court erred procedurally by
varying upward without sufficiently explaining its reasons for doing so. We
review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The district court noted
Sandoval-Garcia’s two prior felonies and concluded that the sentencing factors,
including deterrence and promotion of respect for the law, warranted a variance.1
Sandoval-Garcia also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is
substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court’s upward variance
was improper because it rested in part on a 2007 sexual-assault conviction, the
details of which he alleges were insufficiently established by available
documentation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Sandoval-Garcia’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The district court focused on the fact of the sexual-assault conviction itself, and
discounted the importance of the particular details that Sandoval-Garcia alleges
were inadequately documented. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including Sandoval-Garcia’s criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
1
We do not reach Sandoval-Garcia’s argument that the district court did not
provide sufficient grounds to support an upward departure because the record
shows that the district court instead imposed a variance.
2 17-10231