United States of America v. Moises Fernando Pasos- Valenzuela, a.k.a. Moise Paso- Valenzuela, a.k.a. Moises…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MOISES FERNANDO PASOS-
VALENZUELA, a.k.a. Moise Paso-
Valenzuela, a.k.a. Moises Paso-Valenzuela,
a.k.a. Moises Pasos-Valenzuela, a.k.a.
Moises Fernando Pazos-Valenzuela, a.k.a.
Moises Fernando Valenzuela,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10514
D.C. No. 4:17-cr-01277-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Moises Fernando Pasos-Valenzuela appeals from the district court’s
judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
* 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
SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10514
conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pasos-Valenzuela first argues that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to explain its denial of his request for a two-level reduction in his offense
level for his role in promptly resolving the charges. He did not raise this objection
below, so we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record shows that the court heard and
considered Pasos-Valenzuela’s argument, but was not persuaded that a reduction
was warranted. The court did not plainly err by failing to provide a fuller
explanation, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007), and Pasos-
Valenzuela has not shown any reasonable probability that it would have imposed a
different sentence if it had done so, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755,
762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Pasos-Valenzuela also contends that the district court procedurally erred by
improperly referencing the 2016 Guidelines as being “pretty favorable” in
comparison with older versions of the Guidelines. Pasos-Valenzuela’s
interpretation of the court’s comments is belied by the record, which contains
nothing to suggest that the court relied on a prior version of the Guidelines to
determine the sentence.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --