United States of America v. Jose Guadalupe Vasquez- Corrales

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE GUADALUPE VASQUEZ-
CORRALES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 12-10498
12-10509
D.C. Nos. 4:11-cr-02342-DCB
4:11-cr-50240-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Jose Guadalupe Vasquez-Corrales appeals
from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the eight-month
FILED
DEC 06 2013
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 --

consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In Appeal No. 12-10498, Vasquez-Corrales contends that the district court
procedurally erred by concluding that it could not impose a below-Guidelines
sentence in the absence of a plea agreement. 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 stated that it was aware of its authority to impose a below-
Guidelines sentence, but that it would not do so.
In Appeal No. 12-10509, Vasquez-Corrales contends that the district court
improperly punished him for his underlying criminal conduct in imposing the
revocation sentence. Contrary to the government’s argument, the appeal waiver in
the partes’ agreement does not bar this claim because the district court advised
Vasquez-Corrales without qualification at the sentencing hearing that he had the
right to appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 987 (9th Cir. 2009).
Nevertheless, Vasquez-Corrales’s claim fails. The district court did not plainly err
because the record reflects that the district court properly sanctioned Vasquez-
Corrales for his breach of the court’s trust. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d
1173, 1176, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
12-10498 & 12-10509 2

-- 2 of 2 --