United States of America v. Juan Jose Flores-Gallardo, a.k.a. Juan Jose Flores-Galardo, a.k.a. Juan Flores-Gallardo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN JOSE FLORES-GALLARDO,
a.k.a. Juan Jose Flores-Galardo, a.k.a. Juan
Flores-Gallardo,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-10021
D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00603-JAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Jose Flores-Gallardo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
APR 18 2016
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 2 --

Flores-Gallardo contends that remand is warranted because the government
improperly withheld a motion for a third-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). We disagree. The record reflects that
the government’s decision to withhold the third point in this case was based on
Flores-Gallardo’s failure to plead guilty until after trial commenced. This was not
improper. See id. at cmt. n.6
Flores-Gallardo next contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Flores-
Gallardo’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The low-
end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Flores-
Gallardo’s criminal history and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Moreover, the court’s explanation of the sentence was adequate. See United States
v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
We decline to reach on direct appeal Flores-Gallardo’s claim that his trial
counsel was ineffective. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th
Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
15-10021 2

-- 2 of 2 --