United States of America v. Victor Manuel Lopez-Morales, a.k.a. Victor Manuel Lopez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VICTOR MANUEL LOPEZ-MORALES,
a.k.a. Victor Manuel Lopez,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 14-10564
14-10565
D.C. Nos. 4:14-cr-00833-RCC
4:14-cr-50058-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Victor Manuel Lopez-Morales appeals from
the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted
reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, as well as the 12-month
consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have
* 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
APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-10564 & 14-10565
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez-Morales contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to address his argument that his cultural assimilation warranted a below-Guidelines
sentence, and by referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) at the conclusion of the
sentencing hearing. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none.
The record reflects that the district court considered Lopez-Morales’s argument
concerning his assimilation, and adequately explained the sentence. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, there is no
indication that the court committed plain error by mentioning section 3553(a).
Lopez-Morales also contends that his sentences are substantively
unreasonable in light of his cultural assimilation. The district court did not abuse
its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentences are
substantively reasonable in light of the applicable sentencing factors and the
totality of the circumstances, including Lopez-Morales’s criminal history, his
multiple prior removals, and his failure to be deterred by prior sentences. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --