United States of America v. Victor Rodolfo Hernandez Flores, a.k.a. Rudolfo Hernandez Florez, a.k.a. Uriel Perez…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VICTOR RODOLFO HERNANDEZ
FLORES, a.k.a. Rudolfo Hernandez
Florez, a.k.a. Uriel Perez Orosco, a.k.a.
Ruben Lopez Orozco, a.k.a. Juan
Hernandez Ramirez, a.k.a. Juan Rodolfo
Ramirez, a.k.a. Filiberto Villegas-Salgado,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10145
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00101-CW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Victor Rodolfo Hernandez Flores appeals from the district court’s judgment
FILED
JAN 03 2014
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 --

and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hernandez Flores contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to respond to his
requests for a downward variance and cultural assimilation departure, and to
adequately explain the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The
record reflects that the district court adequately considered the section 3553(a)
sentencing factors, responded to Hernandez Flores’s arguments for a variance and
departure, and sufficiently explained the sentence imposed. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
We do not consider Hernandez Flores’s argument that the district court
failed to properly calculate the Guidelines range and instead created a Guidelines
range that would encompass the 48-month sentence, because it was raised for the
first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100,
1105 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
13-10145 2

-- 2 of 2 --