United States of America v. Juan Heredia-Pantaleon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUAN HEREDIA-PANTALEON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50532
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01975-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Heredia-Pantaleon appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 30-month sentence and 3-year term of supervised release imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-50532
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Heredia-Pantaleon contends that the government breached the parties’ plea
agreement at the sentencing hearing by implicitly suggesting that it did not support
the stipulated two-level fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. This claim
fails because the record reflects that, in its sentencing summary chart and at the
sentencing hearing, the government stood by its recommendation that Heredia-
Pantaleon receive the stipulated fast-track departure. The challenged statements
were offered in response to Heredia-Pantaleon’s request for additional downward
departures, which the plea agreement permitted the government to oppose. See
United States v. Moschella, 727 F.3d 888, 892 (9th Cir. 2013) (no breach where
“the plea agreement specifically authorized the government’s arguments”).
Heredia-Pantaleon next contends that the district court procedurally erred
by basing its rejection of the fast-track departure on its desire to achieve a
particular Guidelines range. This argument is belied by the record, which reflects
that the court followed the proper sentencing procedure. See United States v.
Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2015).
Heredia-Pantaleon finally contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of the district court’s denial of his requests for fast-track and

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-50532
criminal-history departures and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The custodial sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section
3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Heredia-
Pantaleon’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Moreover, the supervised release term is substantively reasonable in light of the
need for deterrence. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; United States v. Valdavinos-
Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --