USA V. RUBEN GALVAN-SALAZAR, No. 16-50112 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50112 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02311-LAB MEMORANDUM* RUBEN GALVAN-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Ruben Galvan-Salazar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month custodial sentence and 3-year term of supervised release 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 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Galvan-Salazar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide a reasoned basis for exercising its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), to reject U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). His reliance on Kimbrough is misplaced. While section 5D1.1(c) states that a district court should not ordinarily impose a term of supervised release if the defendant is a deportable alien, it also provides that supervised release may be appropriate in such cases if it will provide an added measure of deterrence. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5. The district court’s decision to impose supervised release on the basis of its finding that doing so would provide an added measure of deterrence in Galvan-Salazar’s case was, therefore, consistent with the Guidelines. Galvan-Salazar next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to account for the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Galvan-Salazar’s criminal history and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 16-50112
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.
