USA V. MOISES PASOS-VALENZUELA, No. 17-10514 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-10514 D.C. No. 4:17-cr-01277-CKJ v. MOISES FERNANDO PASOSVALENZUELA, a.k.a. Moise PasoValenzuela, a.k.a. Moises Paso-Valenzuela, a.k.a. Moises Pasos-Valenzuela, a.k.a. Moises Fernando Pazos-Valenzuela, a.k.a. Moises Fernando Valenzuela, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Moises Fernando Pasos-Valenzuela appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea * 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). 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. Pasos-Valenzuela first argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain its denial of his request for a two-level reduction in his offense level for his role in promptly resolving the charges. He did not raise this objection below, so we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record shows that the court heard and considered Pasos-Valenzuela’s argument, but was not persuaded that a reduction was warranted. The court did not plainly err by failing to provide a fuller explanation, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007), and PasosValenzuela has not shown any reasonable probability that it would have imposed a different sentence if it had done so, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). Pasos-Valenzuela also contends that the district court procedurally erred by improperly referencing the 2016 Guidelines as being “pretty favorable” in comparison with older versions of the Guidelines. Pasos-Valenzuela’s interpretation of the court’s comments is belied by the record, which contains nothing to suggest that the court relied on a prior version of the Guidelines to determine the sentence. AFFIRMED. 2 17-10514
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.
