Opinion
No. 19-50044
08-23-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUBEN NAVARRETE-FELIX, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:18-cr-04116-LAB-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 (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.