United States of America v. Eden Valdez-Angulo, a.k.a. Eden Valdez Angulo, a.k.a. Miguel Valdez- Angulo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDEN VALDEZ-ANGULO, a.k.a. Eden
Valdez Angulo, a.k.a. Miguel Valdez-
Angulo,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10333
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00326-SMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Eden Valdez-Angulo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 11 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 --

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valdez-Angulo first contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the imposition of two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d)
turned solely on the “happenstance” of the timing of his discovery by immigration
officials. Relying on United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.
2009), Valdez-Angulo also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of his limited roles in his prior convictions, one of which
resulted in a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Valdez-Angulo’s
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Unlike the sentence
in Amezcua-Vasquez, Valdez-Angulo’s below-Guidelines sentence properly
reflects the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including Valdez-Angulo’s criminal and immigration history. See
id.
Finally, Valdez-Angulo contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224 (1998), has been undermined and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is
unconstitutional. As Valdez-Angulo concedes, this argument is foreclosed. See
United States v. Almazan-Becerra, 482 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
13-10333 2

-- 2 of 2 --