NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10103
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:18-cr-01976-JGZ-LCK-1
v.
CARLOS MAURICIO CHAPAS-TORRES, MEMORANDUM*
AKA Nelidio Doblado-Flores,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 6, 2020**
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Mauricio Chapas-Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 30-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).
Chapas-Torres contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to (1) calculate the Guidelines range; (2) confirm that he had read the presentence
report (“PSR”) as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A); and
(3) sufficiently address his mitigating arguments. 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.
While the district court did not explain how it arrived at the Guidelines range
of 24-30 months, it stated that it was adopting that range, which had been
calculated by the probation officer and agreed to by Chapas-Torres. Moreover, the
record reflects that the court confirmed with Chapas-Torres’s counsel that he had
reviewed the PSR with Chapas-Torres, which Chapas-Torres did not dispute when
the court addressed him immediately after counsel’s response. Finally, the record
reflects that, though the district court did not specifically address each of Chapas-
Torres’s mitigating arguments, it sufficiently explained the within-Guidelines
sentence. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008). On
this record, Chapas-Torres has not established that, but for any of the alleged
errors, there is a “reasonable probability” that he would have received a lower
sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Chapas-Torres suggests that, had the court not erred in the ways he asserts,
he might have objected to the calculation of his criminal history points, on the
2 19-10103
ground that he did not know he was on supervised release when he committed the
instant offense. However, even accepting that he would have made such an
objection, it would have been unavailing because the PSR established, by reliable
information, that Chapas-Torres was on supervised release at the time he
committed the instant offense, which is all that the Guidelines require. See
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) & cmt. n.4.
Chapas-Torres’s untimely streamlined request for an extension of time to
file the reply brief is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-10103