USA V. MIGUEL ESPINO-VALVERDE, No. 17-50257 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF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 17-50257 D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02835-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* MIGUEL ESPINO-VALVERDE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Miguel Espino-Valverde appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence 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 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Espino-Valverde contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his personal characteristics, including his mental health issues, and the fact that he has not committed any non-immigration offenses since 1996. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed Espino-Valverde’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.” United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009). The aboveGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of circumstances, including Espino-Valverde’s six prior removals from the United States and the 37-month and 46-month sentences he received for his two previous immigration offenses. See United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2015). Moreover, contrary to Espino-Valverde’s argument, the court’s erroneous assumption that he had previously received a fast-track departure does not make his sentence substantively unreasonable. After that assumption was corrected, the court granted a fast-track departure, and nevertheless concluded that a 46-month sentence was warranted. The record reflects that the court considered EspinoValverde’s mitigating arguments and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 17-50257
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.
