Opinion
No. 12-10530 D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00229-JGZ
01-21-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WALTER VICENTE-GONZALEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Warren W. Eginton, District Judge, Presiding
The Honorable Warren W. Eginton, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Walter Vicente-Gonzalez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vicente-Gonzalez contends that his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because he did not understand the nature and range of possible sentences. We review the voluntariness of a plea de novo. See United States v. Gaither, 245 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2001). The record reflects that although Vicente-Gonzalez disliked the range of possible sentences he was facing, his plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
Vicente-Gonzalez also contends that the district court should have departed downward to account for his cultural assimilation. Our review of departures is limited to determining whether the district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Vasquez-Cruz, 692 F.3d 1001, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 76 (2013). The 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).
AFFIRMED.