Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben NAVARRETE-FELIX, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Ruben Navarrete-Felix appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Navarrete-Felix first contends that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him in accordance with its blanket policy of imposing longer sentences on repeat illegal reentry offenders. The record shows that the district court denied the fast-track reduction and imposed an upward variance based on Navarrete-Felix’s particular criminal and immigration history, rather than a blanket policy. Moreover, the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Navarrete-Felix’s sentence. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2015).
Navarrete-Felix also contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 and due process by basing his sentence on unreliable facts and a policy disagreement with the government’s fast-track policy. We review for plain error, see United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2009), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that Navarrete-Felix was aware of all the facts relevant to the court’s sentencing determination. See United States v. Baldrich, 471 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing the requirements of Rule 32). Moreover, Navarrete-Felix has not shown that his sentence was demonstrably based on any false or unreliable information or on the district court’s alleged policy disagreement with the government. See Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d at 935-36.
Navarrete-Felix’s unopposed motion for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-50044
Decided: August 23, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)