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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 Northern District of California. D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00101-CW. Claudia Wilken, Chief Judge, Presiding.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Owen Peter Martikan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, San Francisco, CA.
For VICTOR RODOLFO HERNAND FLORES, AKA Rudolfo Hernandez Florez, AKA Uriel Perez Orosco, AKA Ruben Lopez Orozco, AKA Juan Hernandez Ramirez, AKA Juan Rodolfo Ramirez, AKA Filiberto Villegas-Salgado, Defendant - Appellant: Ethan Atticus Balogh, Jay A. Nelson, Attorney, Coleman & Balogh LLP, San Francisco, CA.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Victor Rodolfo Hernandez Flores appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported 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.
Hernandez Flores contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to respond to his requests for a downward variance and cultural assimilation departure, and to adequately explain the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court adequately considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, responded to Hernandez Flores's arguments for a variance and departure, and sufficiently explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
We do not consider Hernandez Flores's argument that the district court failed to properly calculate the Guidelines range and instead created a Guidelines range that would encompass the 48-month sentence, because it was raised for the first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.