USA V. JOSE QUINTERO-SANCHEZ, No. 14-10470 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 25 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 14-10470 14-10471 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 4:07-cr-00056-RCC 4:13-cr-02151-RCC v. JOSE ESTEBAN QUINTERO-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose Esteban Quintero, a.k.a. Jose Quintero-Sanchez, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted September 21, 2015** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Jose Esteban Quintero-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for reentry after deportation, 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, and the consecutive 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Quintero-Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and discuss his sentencing arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. ValenciaBarragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Quintero-Sanchez’s arguments and the applicable section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Quintero-Sanchez next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court allegedly focused on a stale criminal conviction and failed to account for the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Quintero-Sanchez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The aggregate within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Quintero-Sanchez’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 14-10470 & 14-10471
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.
