United States of America v. Efrain Armenta-Aguilar, a.k.a. Efrain Sanchez-Armenta, Jose Sanchez- Armenta

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EFRAIN ARMENTA-AGUILAR, a.k.a.
Efrain Sanchez-Armenta, Jose Sanchez-
Armenta,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 14-50218
14-50219
D.C. Nos. 3:14-cr-00012-DMS
3:09-cr-02325-DMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Efrain Armenta-Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgments and
challenges the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 12-
FILED
JUL 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

month-and-one-day consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Armenta-Aguilar contends the district court procedurally erred in imposing
his illegal reentry sentence by failing to (i) justify the 12-month upward variance,
and (ii) explain its rejection of his mitigating arguments. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. Contrary to Armenta-Aguilar’s contentions, the district
adequately explained the sentence and its rejection of his mitigating arguments.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Armenta-Aguilar next contends that the alleged procedural errors rendered
his attempted reentry sentence substantively unreasonable, and that his aggregate
sentence of 39 months and one day is greater than necessary to meet the goals of
sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Armenta-
Aguilar’s sentences. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances
and applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including Armenta-
Aguilar’s extensive immigration history, failure to be deterred, and breach of the
court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058,
1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
14-50218 & 14-50219 2

-- 2 of 2 --