United States of America v. Ruben Galvan-Salazar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RUBEN GALVAN-SALAZAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50112
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02311-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Galvan-Salazar appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 30-month custodial 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
* 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 16-50112
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Galvan-Salazar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to provide a reasoned basis for exercising its discretion under Kimbrough v. United
States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), to reject U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). His reliance on
Kimbrough is misplaced. While section 5D1.1(c) states that a district court should
not ordinarily impose a term of supervised release if the defendant is a deportable
alien, it also provides that supervised release may be appropriate in such cases if it
will provide an added measure of deterrence. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5. The
district court’s decision to impose supervised release on the basis of its finding that
doing so would provide an added measure of deterrence in Galvan-Salazar’s case
was, therefore, consistent with the Guidelines.
Galvan-Salazar next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court failed to account for the mitigating factors. The district
court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including Galvan-Salazar’s criminal history and the need for deterrence. See Gall,
552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --