United States of America v. Sergio Jimenez-Palma, a.k.a. Juan Kamarillo-Rosas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SERGIO JIMENEZ-PALMA, a.k.a. Juan
Kamarillo-Rosas,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 13-10181
13-10183
D.C. Nos. 4:12-cr-02273-DCB
4:07-cr-01850-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Jimenez-Palma appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the 18-month
FILED
JAN 03 2014
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.
Jimenez-Palma contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to explain the revocation sentence and by using his prior illegal reentry sentence,
which resulted from a Guidelines-calculation error, as a benchmark in fashioning
the instant sentences. 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
adequately explained the aggregate sentence and used the Guidelines range as the
starting point and initial benchmark before determining that an upward variance
was appropriate.
Jimenez-Palma further contends that the alleged procedural errors rendered
his sentences substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Jimenez-Palma’s sentences. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the
totality of the circumstances and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including
his failure to be deterred and breach of the court’s trust. See id; United States v.
Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
13-10181 & 13-10183 2

-- 2 of 2 --