FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10154
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00470-GEB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SALVADOR GARCIA-REAL, a.k.a.
Antonio Garcia, a.k.a. Salvador Real-
Garcia,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Garcia-Real appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
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).
Garcia-Real contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
adequately to explain the sentence and why it denied his requests for a downward
variance and a cultural assimilation departure. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find
none. The district court considered Garcia-Real’s mitigating arguments and
adequately explained the sentence with reference to Garcia-Real’s breach of the
court’s trust and repeated violations of the immigration laws.
Garcia-Real also contends that the district court erred by rejecting his
request for a cultural assimilation departure on the basis of an improper factor.
This court does not review the denial of a departure; rather, our review is limited to
determining whether the district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.
See United States v. Vasquez-Cruz, 692 F.3d 1001, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012). The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Garcia-Real’s sentence. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In light of the totality of the
circumstances and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, the within-Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.