United States of America v. Juan Molina-Cruz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN MOLINA-CRUZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50546
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04288-WQH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Molina-Cruz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 48-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial 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
NOV 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Molina-Cruz contends that the district court procedurally erred by (i) relying
on an improper sentencing factor and failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, (ii) failing to consider his mitigating arguments, and
(iii) failing to explain the need for the sentence imposed. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered
the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Molina-Cruz’s mitigating arguments,
did not consider any improper sentencing factors, and adequately explained the
sentence imposed. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th
Cir. 2008).
Molina-Cruz also contends that the district court erred by not awarding him
a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).
The district court did not clearly err in determining that Molina-Cruz did not
qualify for this reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.2; United States v.
Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1088-90 (9th Cir. 2004).
Molina-Cruz further contends that the procedural errors rendered his
sentence substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in imposing Molina-Cruz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
11-50546 2

-- 2 of 3 --

(2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.
AFFIRMED.
11-50546 3

-- 3 of 3 --