USA V. DOMINGO MATIAS-PEREZ, No. 15-10341 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 02 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-10341 D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00007-RM v. MEMORANDUM* DOMINGO MATIAS-PEREZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Domingo Matias-Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 54-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 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). Matias-Perez contends that the district court procedurally erred by improperly considering the fact that he rejected a fast-track plea agreement, failing to address his mitigating arguments, and failing to explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Matias-Perez’s mitigating arguments and explained the sentence sufficiently. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the record does not support Matias-Perez’s contention that the district court improperly considered Matias-Perez’s rejection of the fast-track agreement or that it based the sentence on a policy of imposing harsher sentences for illegal reentry defendants who reject such agreements. Matias-Perez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give appropriate weight to the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Matias-Perez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Matias-Perez’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Guiterrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a 2 15-10341 particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 3 15-10341
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.
