United States of America v. Abraham Garcia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ABRAHAM GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-638
D.C. No. 4:21-cr-03197-JCH-DTF-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John C. Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Abraham Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the sentence of 12 months and 1 day imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for smuggling goods from the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a).
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 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-638
Garcia contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
address his imperfect duress mitigating argument, and relying excessively on
general deterrence. We review for plain error, United States v. Valencia-Barragan,
608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is none. The record
shows that the court fully considered Garcia’s imperfect duress argument, which
was discussed extensively at the sentencing hearing, and simply was unpersuaded
by it, deciding to vary downward on other bases instead. The record also indicates
that the court considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and relied primarily
on the seriousness of the offense, rather than general deterrence, in selecting the
sentence. In any event, the weight to be given a sentencing factor in a particular
case is within the discretion of the district court. See United States v. Gutierrez-
Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009).
Garcia also contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
adequate deterrence could have been achieved with a non-custodial sentence.
Although Garcia’s personal history and characteristics were mitigating, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a custodial sentence, which was well
below the applicable Guidelines range. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --