United States of America v. Cristobal Figueroa-Magana

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRISTOBAL FIGUEROA-MAGANA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50420
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00603-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Cristobal Figueroa-Magana appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 18-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised
release 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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-50420
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Figueroa-Magana contends that the three-year term of supervised release is
substantively unreasonable in light of his circumstances and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c).
The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v.
Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692 (9th Cir. 2012). The term is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including Figueroa-Magana’s significant criminal history. See
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d at 692-93.
Figueroa-Magana next contends that the government breached the plea
agreement by recommending a term of supervised release. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2012), and find none.
Figueroa-Magana has not shown a breach because the plea agreement advised him
that a term of supervised release was one of the statutory penalties for his offense,
and the agreement was silent regarding whether the government could recommend a
term of supervised release. See United States v. Franco-Lopez, 312 F.3d 984, 989
(9th Cir. 2002) (construing plea agreement based on what the defendant reasonably
believed to be its terms at the time of the plea).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --