United States of America v. Saul Soto-Melchor

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAUL SOTO-MELCHOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30254
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00121-JLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Saul Soto-Melchor appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 40-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal
reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30254 2
Soto-Melchor first contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider his arguments regarding unwarranted sentencing disparities and
other mitigating factors, and by failing to explain why it rejected those arguments.
We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court listened to and addressed
Soto-Melchor’s arguments, and adequately explained the sentence imposed.
Soto-Melchor next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Soto-Melchor’s sentence.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors
and the totality of the circumstances, including Soto-Melchor’s history of
immigration violations and the circumstances of his arrest. See id.
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062
(9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it
delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). See
United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding
sua sponte to delete the reference to section 1326(b)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --