USA V. ALFREDO SANCHEZ, No. 15-50351 (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FILED AUG 02 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-50351 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00877-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* ALFREDO SANCHEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Alfredo Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for making a false statement in application and use of a United States passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. 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). Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by basing the sentence on clearly erroneous facts, namely that Sanchez had been previously removed on two occasions. Even assuming that Sanchez is correct that the district court clearly erred by finding that Sanchez had been removed on two prior occasions, the record reflects that the sentence was not based on that finding. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“It would be procedural error for a district court to . . . choose a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts”). Sanchez next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his mitigating argument regarding his motivation for committing the instant offense. Because Sanchez failed to raise this specific objection before the district court, we review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Sanchez’s mitigating argument and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as to each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel.”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-50351
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.
