United States of America v. Jorge Enrique Campana- Barraza, a.k.a. Eric

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE ENRIQUE CAMPANA-
BARRAZA, a.k.a. Eric,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50041
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00256-SJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Enrique Campana-Barraza appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 188-month sentence and five-year term of supervised release
imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to
FILED
DEC 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-50041 2
possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846;
and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Campana-Barraza contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and by failing
to explain why a supervised release term was warranted given his deportable alien
status. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court listened to the
mitigating arguments, considered the section 3553(a) factors, and adequately
explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc). Furthermore, the five-year supervised release term was the
statutory mandatory minimum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1.
Campana-Barraza next contends that the district court abused its discretion
by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. Campana-Barraza’s sentence
at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the
section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --