United States of America v. Rafael Estrada-Trujillo, a.k.a. Rafael Estrada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAFAEL ESTRADA-TRUJILLO, a.k.a.
Rafael Estrada,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-10167
D.C. No. 4:14-cr-01887-JAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Estrada-Trujillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 21-month sentence and three year term of supervised release
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in
* 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).
FILED
FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-10167
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Estrada-Trujillo contends that the government breached the parties’ plea
agreement when it asked the district court to reject the agreement and argued for an
upward variance during sentencing. Because Estrada-Trujillo failed to object on
this ground below, we review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556
U.S. 129, 143 (2009). There is no plain error because the government asked the
court to reject the agreement only after Estrada-Trujillo stated that it was
unenforceable. Moreover, even if the agreement were enforceable, it did not
preclude the government from requesting a variance. Finally, Estrada-Trujillo
received a sentence within the lowest range stipulated in the plea agreement for his
criminal history category. See id. at 141-42 (defendant cannot show prejudice
where he received the benefits of his agreement despite alleged breach).
Estrada-Trujillo also contends that the district court procedurally erred when
it allegedly took judicial notice of the Mexican health care system during
sentencing, and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We disagree. It
was not improper for the court to state, in response to Estrada-Trujillo’s
explanation for why he returned to the United States, that it believed that Estrada-

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-10167
Trujillo could get surgery in Mexico even if he could not afford it. In any event,
the record reflects that the court considered all of Estrada-Trujillo’s mitigating
factors, including his medical condition, and properly imposed sentence on the
basis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the within-Guidelines
custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised release are substantively
reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, particularly the failure of prior lengthier sentences to deter him.
See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --