UNITED STATES v. SANDOVAL GARCIA (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

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.

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, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (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, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

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.