United States of America v. Rene Martell-Enriquez, a.k.a. Rene Martinez-Enrigue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RENE MARTELL-ENRIQUEZ, a.k.a.
Rene Martinez-Enrigue,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50257
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00218-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Rene Martell-Enriquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
* 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 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-50257
§ 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Martell-Enriquez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.2 and 4A1.3. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find
none. Martell-Enriquez has not identified any error in the computation of his
criminal history category under section 4A1.2. Moreover, because the district
court did not depart upward on the basis that Martell-Enriquez’s criminal history
category was inadequate, section 4A1.3 was not a “pertinent policy statement” that
the district court was required to consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5).
Martell-Enriquez next contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The above-Guidelines sentence is not an abuse of discretion in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including Martell-Enriquez’s criminal and immigration history.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Burgos-
Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2848 (2015)
(district court “reasonably concluded” that the need for deterrence “required a
sentence at least equal to [the defendant’s] last illegal re-entry sentence”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --