USA V. JUAN PENA-TORRES, No. 18-10043 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 18-10043 18-10044 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 4:17-cr-01085-DCB 4:17-cr-50129-DCB v. JUAN ANTONIO PENA-TORRES, a.k.a. Juan Antonio Pena-Torres, a.k.a. Juan Pena Torres, a.k.a. Juan A. Pena Torres, a.k.a. Juan Pena-Torres, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Juan Antonio Pena-Torres appeals the 15month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 6-month consecutive * 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). sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Pena-Torres contends that the district court erred procedurally by failing to address and explain why it was rejecting his mitigating arguments, basing the illegal reentry sentence exclusively on the need for deterrence, and failing to explain the sentence imposed for the supervised release violation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court explicitly acknowledged Pena-Torres’s mitigating arguments, but concluded that they did not warrant a downward variance from the Guideline range. Rather, the court believed that, in light of the need for deterrence and Pena-Torres’s criminal history, consecutive within-Guidelines sentences were warranted. Pena-Torres has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a lower sentence had the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors or his mitigating arguments in greater detail. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). Pena-Torres also contends that the sentences are substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 2 18-10043 & 18-10044 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 3 18-10043 & 18-10044
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.
