United States of America v. Samuel Antonio Hernandez- Castro, a.k.a. Samuel Hernandez- Castro

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-
CASTRO, a.k.a. Samuel Hernandez-
Castro,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-10083
D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00276-RCC-
BGM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 30, 2016**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Hernandez-Castro appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 60-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
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
APR 01 2016
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 --

Hernandez-Castro contends that the district court procedurally erred at
sentencing by not addressing his argument in mitigation and failing to explain the
reasons for his sentence. Because Hernandez-Castro did not object on these
grounds below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan,
608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-
62 (9th Cir. 2008).
The record shows that the district court listened to defense counsel’s
mitigation argument as well as Hernandez-Castro’s own statement regarding his
prior conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. The court calculated the Sentencing
Guidelines range and imposed a sentence at the lower end of that range.
Hernandez-Castro offers no evidence or argument that there is a reasonable
probability that the sentence would have been lower if the court had explicitly
addressed his mitigation argument and provided more explanation for the sentence.
Thus, Hernandez-Castro has not shown that his substantial rights were affected,
and so he has not met the plain error test. See Dallman, 533 F.3d at 761-62.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --