United States of America v. Ruben Navarrete-Felix

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RUBEN NAVARRETE-FELIX,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-50044
D.C. No. 3:18-cr-04116-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Navarrete-Felix appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence 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. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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
AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-50044
Navarrete-Felix first contends that the district court abused its discretion by
sentencing him in accordance with its blanket policy of imposing longer sentences
on repeat illegal reentry offenders. The record shows that the district court denied
the fast-track reduction and imposed an upward variance based on Navarrete-
Felix’s particular criminal and immigration history, rather than a blanket policy.
Moreover, the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Navarrete-Felix’s sentence. See United States v. Rosales-
Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2015).
Navarrete-Felix also contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32 and due process by basing his sentence on unreliable facts
and a policy disagreement with the government’s fast-track policy. We review for
plain error, see United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir.
2009), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that Navarrete-Felix
was aware of all the facts relevant to the court’s sentencing determination. See
United States v. Baldrich, 471 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing the
requirements of Rule 32). Moreover, Navarrete-Felix has not shown that his
sentence was demonstrably based on any false or unreliable information or on the
district court’s alleged policy disagreement with the government. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-50044
Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d at 935-36.
Navarrete-Felix’s unopposed motion for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --