United States of America v. Adrian Chavez-Silva

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).
AK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN CHAVEZ-SILVA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-10413
D.C. No. 4:08-CR-00033-RCC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Adrian Chavez-Silva appeals from the 84-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AK/Research 08-10413 2
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Chavez-Silva contends that the district court erred by not granting a third-
point reduction for acceptance of responsibility because the government’s refusal
to move for the reduction was arbitrary and not rationally related to a legitimate
government end. This court has held that the government’s decision not to move
for the additional level reduction is not arbitrary if the government is forced to
anticipate and defend the appeal of a sentence. See United States v. Medina-
Beltran, 542 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
Chavez-Silva also contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the
district court declined to grant a downward departure for imperfect duress and
failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record as a
whole reflects that the district court adequately considered Chavez-Silva’s
arguments in support of his request for a departure and/or a variance, but found the
circumstances insufficient to justify a sentence below the advisory Guidelines
range. The district court did not procedurally err and the sentence is substantively
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --