United States of America v. Rogelio Andres Cruz, a.k.a. Rogelio Andres-Cruz, a.k.a. Julian Garcia

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGELIO ANDRES CRUZ, a.k.a.
Rogelio Andres-Cruz, a.k.a. Julian Garcia,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10445
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-02061-PGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rogelio Andres Cruz appeals from the 11-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10445 2
Andres Cruz contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to
address the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and by relying on
sentencing factors excluded from consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We
review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court adequately addressed the
relevant section 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not rely on any impermissible
factor. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2006). The
court’s consideration of Andres Cruz’s history of illegal reentries was not
improper. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Andres Cruz also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Andres Cruz’s sentence.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In light of the totality of the
circumstances and the section 3583(e) sentencing factors, the within-Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Gall, 552 U.S. at
51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --