United States of America v. Mario Valenzuela-Morales, a.k.a. Mario Higuera-Valenzuela, a.k.a. Martin Valenzuela…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIO VALENZUELA-MORALES,
a.k.a. Mario Higuera-Valenzuela, a.k.a.
Martin Valenzuela Verdugo,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10157
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01961-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Karen E. Schreier, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 18, 2014***
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Mario Valenzuela-Morales appeals from the district court’s judgment and
FILED
FEB 26 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 Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Court for the
District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

challenges the 46-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised
release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed
alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Valenzuela-Morales contends that the district court erred by failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and his mitigation arguments
and by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the custodial sentence and
supervised-release term. 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 properly considered the section 3553(a) factors, adequately
addressed Valenzuela-Morales’s mitigation arguments, and provided sufficient
reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court’s reasoning for imposing
the supervised-release term is apparent from the record. See id. at 992
(“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the
record as a whole.”).
Valenzuela-Morales also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Valenzuela-Morales’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
13-10157 2

-- 2 of 3 --

The custodial sentence and supervised-release term are substantively reasonable in
light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including Valenzuela-Morales’s criminal and immigration history. See id.;
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5.
Finally, Valenzuela-Morales contends that the indictment was defective
because it did not allege his predicate conviction. Our case law forecloses this
contention. See United States v. Mendoza-Zaragoza, 567 F.3d 431, 434 (9th Cir.
2009).
AFFIRMED.
13-10157 3

-- 3 of 3 --