United States of America v. Javier Garibay Mendoza- Romero, a.k.a. Javier Garibay-Romero, a.k.a. Jose Mendoza-Romero

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAVIER GARIBAY MENDOZA-
ROMERO, a.k.a. Javier Garibay-Romero,
a.k.a. Jose Mendoza-Romero,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50431
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01189-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Javier Garibay Mendoza-Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-50431
8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mendoza-Romero first argues that the district court erred in relying on his
prior conviction for robbery under California Penal Code § 211 to impose a 12-
level crime of violence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). This
contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881, 893
(9th Cir. 2008) (a conviction for robbery under California Penal Code § 211 is a
categorical crime of violence); see also United States v. Chavez-Cuevas, 862 F.3d
729, 740 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming continuing viability of Becerril-Lopez).
Mendoza-Romero next claims that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of the decrease in the seriousness of his criminal offenses
over time and other mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Mendoza-Romero’s sentence. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Contrary to Mendoza-Romero’s suggestion, the record
reflects that the court considered his mitigating arguments. The sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality
of the circumstances, including Mendoza-Romero’s criminal and immigration
history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --