USA V. BENITO ROBLES-DIAZ, No. 17-50398 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-50398 D.C. No. 3:17-cr-01430-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* BENITO ROBLES-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Benito Robles-Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546. 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). Robles-Diaz contends that the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because the circumstances of his case did not justify a sentence roughly one year longer than the sentence recommended by probation and the parties. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Robles-Diaz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Robles-Diaz’s four alcohol-related driving convictions and his immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F. 3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Furthermore, contrary to Robles-Diaz’s assertion, the district court used the correctly calculated Guidelines range as the starting point for its analysis, considered the relevant sentencing factors, and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 17-50398
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.
