United States of America v. Benito Robles-Diaz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BENITO ROBLES-DIAZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50398
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
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.
* 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 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50398
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.

-- 2 of 2 --