United States of America v. Ruben Oscar Robles

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RUBEN OSCAR ROBLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50214
D.C. No. 3:17-cr-04391-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Oscar Robles appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 78-month custodial sentence and 5-year term of supervised release
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine,
heroin, and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We
* 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
JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-50214
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part and vacate and
remand in part.
Robles contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider or address his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and
conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered
Robles’s arguments for a downward variance and adequately explained its reasons
for imposing a within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The court was not required to specifically
address each of Robles’s arguments. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d
514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).
Robles also contends that the district court plainly erred by miscalculating
the supervised release Guidelines range. The district court’s statement that Robles
faced “three years to life” was error, regardless of whether the court was referring
to the statutory term or the advisory Guideline range for supervised release. See
U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 cmt. n.9 (if defendant is safety valve eligible, he is exempt from
the statutory minimum term of supervised release); id. § 5D1.2(a)(1) (applicable
Guidelines range for supervised release is two to five years). Accordingly, we
vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for resentencing as to the
supervised release term only. See Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-50214
1338, 1346 (2016) (“In most cases a defendant who has shown that the district
court mistakenly deemed applicable an incorrect, higher Guidelines range has
demonstrated a reasonable probability of a different outcome.”).
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --