Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. D.C. No. 3:12-cr-02602-BEN-1. Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Andrew James Galvin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, San Diego, CA.
For BENJAMIN CARREON-OCAMPO, Defendant - Appellant: Barbara Donovan, DONOVAN & DONOVAN, San Diego, CA.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Benjamin Carreon-Ocampo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 30-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.
Carreon-Ocampo contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing. Because Carreon-Ocampo did not raise these procedural issues in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court did not plainly err. It was permissible for the district court to consider Carreon-Ocampo's prior sentences for immigration offenses, and the court considered all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the Sentencing Guidelines, and adequately explained the reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Higuera-Llamos, 574 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that it was proper to consider whether prior sentence for immigration offense served as an adequate deterrent when determining appropriate sentence for new immigration offense).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 30-month sentence. The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including Carreon-Ocampo's repeated illegal entries into the United States and the need for deterrence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Orozco-Acosta, 607 F.3d 1156, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing Amezcua-Vasquez where higher sentence was necessary to deter defendant from subsequent re-entry); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that the " weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court" and holding that the district court did not place undue weight on need for deterrence where defendant repeatedly entered the United States illegally).
AFFIRMED.