United States of America v. Alfredo Campos-Padilla

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO CAMPOS-PADILLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10469
D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00764-JMR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Campos-Padilla appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported 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.
FILED
OCT 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-10469 2
Campos-Padilla contends that the district court erred by refusing to grant
him a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Because “the
government’s decision not to move for the additional level reduction was not
arbitrary,” there was no error. United States v. Medina-Beltran, 542 F.3d 729, 731
(9th Cir. 2008).
We also disagree that because Campos-Padilla pleaded guilty in the early
stages of the proceeding against him, the failure to afford him the same benefit
afforded to those defendants who agree to the Government’s standard written
fast-track plea agreement created an unwarranted disparity. See United States v.
Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009).
The district court did not abuse its discretion because it did not commit any
significant procedural error and in light of the totality of the circumstances, the
sentence below the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See United States
v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Campos-Padilla’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --