United States of America v. Francisco Gastelum-Campa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO GASTELUM-CAMPA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50308
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03433-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Gastelum-Campa appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
making a false claim to United States citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 16 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 --

Gastelum-Campa contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed. Specifically,
he argues that the district court failed to (1) explain why it rejected his argument
that the mitigating factors justified a sentence of time served, (2) explain why the
Guidelines range was inadequate, and (3) provide a meaningful justification for the
extent of the variance imposed. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The
record reflects that the district court adequately explained the sentence, including
its reasons for rejecting Gastelum-Campa’s arguments in support of a within-
Guidelines sentence and for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Gastelum-Campa also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “The weight to be
given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district
court.” United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009).
The 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the need to
deter and to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
14-50308 2

-- 2 of 2 --