The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-10637•United States of America v. Hector Alvarez
12-10637Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 19, 2013
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HECTOR ALVAREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10637
D.C. No. 5:97-cr-20039-RMW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Hector Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to
possess heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 19 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 --
Alvarez contends that the district court procedurally erred by miscalculating
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. We review for plain error. See United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the
record reflects that the district court misstated the applicable Guidelines range, it
also makes clear that the court understood itself to be sentencing within the correct
97- to 121-month range. Because Alvarez has not shown a reasonable probability
that he would have received a different sentence had the court not misspoken, he is
not entitled to relief. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.
2008).
Alvarez also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider and address his arguments about his state sentence. To the contrary, the
record reflects that the court considered Alvarez’s arguments and adequately
explained the sentence imposed. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59
(2007).
AFFIRMED.
12-10637 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.