United States of America v. Cesar Gonzalez-Orozco, a.k.a. Cesar Humberto Gonzales, a.k.a. Cesar Gonzalez, a.k.a.…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CESAR GONZALEZ-OROZCO, a.k.a.
Cesar Humberto Gonzales, a.k.a. Cesar
Gonzalez, a.k.a. Cesar Humberto Gonzalez,
a.k.a. Cesar H. Gonzalez-Orozco, a.k.a.
Cesar Umberto Gonzalez-Orozco, a.k.a.
Cesar Humberto Gonzalez-Orozco,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50175
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00495-BRO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Gonzalez-Orozco appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 77-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-50175
release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien
found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm but remand to correct
the judgment.
Gonzalez-Orozco contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider and address his sentencing arguments sufficiently. 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 considered
each of Gonzalez-Orozco’s arguments for a lower sentence and adequately
explained its reasons for imposing the low-end sentence. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Gonzalez-Orozco next contends that the district court procedurally erred by
imposing the term of supervised release, and that the term of supervised release is
substantively unreasonable. These claims fail. Contrary to Gonzalez-Orozco’s
contentions, the district court properly considered the relevant policy statement for
imposing a term of supervised release on a deportable alien, see U.S.S.G.
§ 5D1.1(c), and the court’s statement that a term of supervised release would
permit the court to provide Gonzalez-Orozco with treatment if he returns to the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-50175
United States was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d
1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical,
implausible, or without support in the record.”). Moreover, the supervised release
term is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gonzalez-Orozco’s criminal
history. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir.
2012).
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062
(9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it
delete from the judgment the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --