USA V. ANTONIO CERVANTES-PERALTA, No. 14-10548 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 14-10548 14-10549 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:14-cr-00035-JAD 2:14-cr-00039-JAD v. ANTONIO CERVANTES-PERALTA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Antonio Cervantes-Peralta appeals the 46-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 8-month sentence * 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). imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Cervantes-Peralta contends that the three-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable in light of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692 (9th Cir. 2012). The term is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need for deterrence. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d at 692-93. Further, the court sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Cervantes-Peralta next contends that the aggregate custodial sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to impose fully concurrent sentences. We find no abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The Guidelines state that a revocation sentence should run consecutive to any sentence imposed for conduct that is the basis of the revocation, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), and the court here made the sentences largely concurrent. The sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 14-10548 & 14-10549
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.
