NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-10052
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00080-LRH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ADOLFO SANDOVAL-MAGANA, a.k.a.
Adolfo Magana, a.k.a. Carlos Francisco
Mendoza, a.k.a. Adolfo M. Sandoval,
a.k.a. Manual Valencia,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Adolfo Sandoval-Magana appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry by a deported, removed,
*
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).
or excluded alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sandoval-Magana contends that the district court committed procedural
error by imposing his sentence to run consecutively to his undischarged state
sentence. Specifically, he contends that the court failed to consult
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 and its application notes; failed to consider the alleged
sentencing disparities created by fortuities in the timing of federal and state
prosecutions; failed to consider the alternative of a partially concurrent sentence;
and relied upon speculation in imposing a consecutive sentence. The record belies
Sandoval-Magana’s contention that the district court relied on speculation at
sentencing. As to his other contentions, absent some indication in the record to the
contrary, we assume that district courts know and apply the relevant law. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the
record reflects that the district court’s decision was reached after deliberation and
was within its discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584; U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. As such,
Sandoval-Magana cannot show that his substantial rights were affected by the
alleged errors. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-10052