United States of America v. Francisco Javier Valencia- Guillen, a.k.a. Francisco Javier Valencia, a.k.a.…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO JAVIER VALENCIA-
GUILLEN, a.k.a. Francisco Javier
Valencia, a.k.a. Francisco Valencia-
Guillen,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10461
D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00529-JAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Javier Valencia-Guillen appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
FILED
MAY 31 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 3 --

conviction for conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens for profit, and
harboring illegal aliens for profit, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valencia-Guillen contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to
resolve his objections to the presentence report, in violation of Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B); (2) relying on hearsay statements contained in law
enforcement reports; and (3) applying the preponderance of the evidence standard
when imposing contested sentencing enhancements. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013), and find none.
The court satisfied Rule 32 by explicitly overruling all of Valencia-Guillen’s
objections and adopting the reasoning contained in the government’s response and
the addendum to the presentence report. See United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154,
1158-59 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the hearsay statements made by codefendants
and witnesses were consistent, providing the minimal indicia of reliability
necessary to allow their consideration at sentencing. See United States v. Berry,
258 F.3d 971, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2001). Finally, even assuming Valencia-Guillen is
correct that the facts underlying the contested enhancements should have been
proved by clear and convincing evidence, that standard was met here.
14-10461 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Valencia-Guillen’s motion to take judicial notice of his plea agreement in his
New Mexico case is granted.
AFFIRMED.
14-10461 3

-- 3 of 3 --