United States of America v. Manuel De Jesus Varela, a.k.a. De Jesus Isaguires-Varela

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MANUEL DE JESUS VARELA, a.k.a. De
Jesus Isaguires-Varela,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50165
D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02797-CAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Manuel De Jesus Varela appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 21-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
being a removed 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.
* 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
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50165
De Jesus Varela argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain why it rejected his non-frivolous argument that his reason for reentry
justified a lower sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there
is none. The record reflects that the district court considered De Jesus Varela’s
sentencing arguments and adequately explained its reasons for selecting a within-
Guidelines term. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). Contrary
to De Jesus Varela’s contention, the record as a whole reflects that the district court
believed that, notwithstanding De Jesus Varela’s mitigating arguments, a sentence
at the top of the Guidelines range was warranted in light of his criminal and
immigration history. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc) (adequate explanation can be inferred from the record as a whole).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --