Opinion
No. 17-50398
08-16-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENITO ROBLES-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:17-cr-01430-BEN MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Benito Robles-Diaz appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Robles-Diaz contends that the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because the circumstances of his case did not justify a sentence roughly one year longer than the sentence recommended by probation and the parties. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Robles-Diaz's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Robles-Diaz's four alcohol-related driving convictions and his immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also 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."). Furthermore, contrary to Robles-Diaz's assertion, the district court used the correctly calculated Guidelines range as the starting point for its analysis, considered the relevant sentencing factors, and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.