United States of America v. Gabriel Arellano, a.k.a. Gab Arellano, a.k.a. Gabe Arellano, a.k.a. Gabriel Gasta…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GABRIEL ARELLANO, a.k.a. Gab
Arellano, a.k.a. Gabe Arellano, a.k.a.
Gabriel Gasta Arellano, a.k.a. Gabriel Geta
Arellano, a.k.a. Gabriel Arrellano, a.k.a.
Gabriel Geata Arrellano, a.k.a. Gabb
Dreamboys, a.k.a. Gabe, a.k.a. Gabriel A.
Gaeta, a.k.a. Shacky, a.k.a. Shark, a.k.a.
Sharky, a.k.a. Sparky,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50207
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01446-ODW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Arellano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in
FILED
FEB 25 2015
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 --

the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arellano contends that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was
violated by the three-year delay between his indictment and arrest. By pleading
guilty, he waived this claim. See United States v. Chon, 210 F.3d 990, 995 (9th
Cir. 2000) (upon entering conditional guilty pleas pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(a)(2), defendants waived all other issues not expressly reserved for appeal).
Arellano next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain the sentence adequately. 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 considered Arellano’s arguments and
sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-
93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Finally, Arellano contends that the district court abused its discretion by
imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. The below-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality
of the circumstances, including Arellano’s extensive criminal history and the need
for deterrence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
13-50207 2

-- 2 of 2 --