United States of America v. Fernando Sandoval-Garcia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FERNANDO SANDOVAL-GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10231
D.C. No. 4:16-cr-02040-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Sandoval-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 20-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea 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.
* 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
MAY 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10231
Sandoval-Garcia contends that the district court erred procedurally by
varying upward without sufficiently explaining its reasons for doing so. 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 district court noted
Sandoval-Garcia’s two prior felonies and concluded that the sentencing factors,
including deterrence and promotion of respect for the law, warranted a variance.1
Sandoval-Garcia also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is
substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court’s upward variance
was improper because it rested in part on a 2007 sexual-assault conviction, the
details of which he alleges were insufficiently established by available
documentation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Sandoval-Garcia’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The district court focused on the fact of the sexual-assault conviction itself, and
discounted the importance of the particular details that Sandoval-Garcia alleges
were inadequately documented. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including Sandoval-Garcia’s criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
1 We do not reach Sandoval-Garcia’s argument that the district court did not
provide sufficient grounds to support an upward departure because the record
shows that the district court instead imposed a variance.

-- 2 of 2 --