USA V. RUBEN NAVARRETE-FELIX, No. 19-50044 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-50044 D.C. No. 3:18-cr-04116-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* RUBEN NAVARRETE-FELIX, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 19, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Ruben Navarrete-Felix appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-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). Navarrete-Felix first contends that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him in accordance with its blanket policy of imposing longer sentences on repeat illegal reentry offenders. The record shows that the district court denied the fast-track reduction and imposed an upward variance based on NavarreteFelix’s particular criminal and immigration history, rather than a blanket policy. Moreover, the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Navarrete-Felix’s sentence. See United States v. RosalesGonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2015). Navarrete-Felix also contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 and due process by basing his sentence on unreliable facts and a policy disagreement with the government’s fast-track policy. We review for plain error, see United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2009), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that Navarrete-Felix was aware of all the facts relevant to the court’s sentencing determination. See United States v. Baldrich, 471 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing the requirements of Rule 32). Moreover, Navarrete-Felix has not shown that his sentence was demonstrably based on any false or unreliable information or on the district court’s alleged policy disagreement with the government. See 2 19-50044 Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d at 935-36. Navarrete-Felix’s unopposed motion for judicial notice is granted. AFFIRMED. 3 19-50044
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.
