United States of America v. Alfredo Sanchez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50351
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00877-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for making a
false statement in application and use of a United States passport, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1542. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
AUG 02 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 --

Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by basing the
sentence on clearly erroneous facts, namely that Sanchez had been previously
removed on two occasions. Even assuming that Sanchez is correct that the district
court clearly erred by finding that Sanchez had been removed on two prior
occasions, the record reflects that the sentence was not based on that finding. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“It would be
procedural error for a district court to . . . choose a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts”).
Sanchez next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
respond to his mitigating argument regarding his motivation for committing the
instant offense. Because Sanchez failed to raise this specific objection before the
district court, 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 considered Sanchez’s mitigating argument and adequately explained
the sentence. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir.
2011) (“The district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as to
each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel.”).
AFFIRMED.
15-50351 2

-- 2 of 2 --