USA V. JUAN ROMERO-CERVANTES, No. 13-10638 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 18 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-10638 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00087-KJM v. MEMORANDUM* JUAN GUSTAVO ROMEROCERVANTES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 13, 2014** Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Juan Gustavo Romero-Cervantes appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 * 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). U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Romero-Cervantes contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to depart or vary downward from the advisory Guidelines range on the basis of his cultural assimilation. Our review of this claim is limited to determining whether the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Vasquez-Cruz, 692 F.3d 1001, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 76 (2013). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing RomeroCervantes s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the top of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Romero-Cervantes s extensive criminal history and five prior deportations. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.8; Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 13-10638

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.