USA V. JOSE VASQUEZ-CORRALES, No. 12-10498 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 06 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 12-10498 12-10509 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 4:11-cr-02342-DCB 4:11-cr-50240-DCB v. JOSE GUADALUPE VASQUEZCORRALES, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Jose Guadalupe Vasquez-Corrales appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the eight-month * 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). consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. In Appeal No. 12-10498, Vasquez-Corrales contends that the district court procedurally erred by concluding that it could not impose a below-Guidelines sentence in the absence of a plea agreement. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court stated that it was aware of its authority to impose a belowGuidelines sentence, but that it would not do so. In Appeal No. 12-10509, Vasquez-Corrales contends that the district court improperly punished him for his underlying criminal conduct in imposing the revocation sentence. Contrary to the government s argument, the appeal waiver in the partes agreement does not bar this claim because the district court advised Vasquez-Corrales without qualification at the sentencing hearing that he had the right to appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 987 (9th Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, Vasquez-Corrales s claim fails. The district court did not plainly err because the record reflects that the district court properly sanctioned VasquezCorrales for his breach of the court s trust. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED. 2 12-10498 & 12-10509
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.
