United States of America v. Rafael Urquidez-Nava

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAFAEL URQUIDEZ-NAVA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50274
D.C. No. 3:16-cr-03011-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Urquidez-Nava appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 18-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. § 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 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-50274
Urquidez-Nava contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to address his non-frivolous arguments for a lower sentence. 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 court
considered Urquidez-Nava’s mitigating arguments and was not persuaded that they
warranted a lower sentence. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-
17 (9th Cir. 2008).
Urquidez-Nava next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court gave undue weight to his criminal and immigration
history and failed to consider unwarranted sentencing disparities. The court did
not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
court properly considered Urquidez-Nava’s immigration history in determining
whether to grant a fast-track departure and what sentence to impose. See United
States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015). The 18-month
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also
United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 718-19 (9th Cir. 2006)
(sentencing disparities that result from the fast-track program are not unwarranted

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-50274
and, as such, do not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --