United States of America v. Abraham Flores-Angeles

* 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).
*** The Honorable Morris S. Arnold, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth
Circuit, sitting by designation.
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ABRAHAM FLORES-ANGELES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10248
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00506-SRB-4
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: ARNOLD, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Abraham Flores-Angeles (“Flores-Angeles”) appeals his
conviction and sentence for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1203 (Hostage Taking and
FILED
SEP 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Conspiracy to Commit Hostage Taking), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Possessing,
Using, and Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence), and
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) (Harboring Illegal Aliens). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Flores-Angeles argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1)
excluding I-213 immigration forms from evidence, and failing to allow Flores-
Angeles to use these forms to cross-examine witnesses; and (2) imposing on
Flores-Angeles a sentence of 132 months imprisonment.
A district court abuses its discretion “when it makes an error of law, [when
it] rests its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when we are left with
a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of
judgment.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1283 (9th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Even applying this normal abuse of discretion
standard rather than the plain error standard advocated by the Appellee, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the immigration forms from
evidence. Defense counsel’s explanation of the forms’ relevance, even assuming it
was offered in a timely manner, does not convince us that the district court erred.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Flores-
Angeles to 132 months in prison. See United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
1089 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (explaining that a sentence is reasonable if “the
record as a whole reflects rational and meaningful consideration of the factors
enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --