UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ BORQUEZ (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Alfredo Gonzalez-Borquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-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.

Gonzalez-Borquez first contends that the district court procedurally erred in imposing his sentence. 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. Contrary to Gonzalez-Borquez’s contentions, the record indicates that the district court made an individualized sentencing determination and addressed Gonzalez-Borquez’s arguments for a downward variance. Furthermore, Gonzalez-Borquez has not shown that his sentence was based on unsupported assumptions or erroneous facts in violation of his substantial rights. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th Cir. 2013).

Gonzalez-Borquez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We conclude that the court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion in giving greater weight to the need for deterrence and protection of the public. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court”). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gonzalez-Borquez’s criminal history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.