United States of America v. Erminio Hernandez-Rauda

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERMINIO HERNANDEZ-RAUDA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50406
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01336-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Erminio Hernandez-Rauda appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(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
JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-50406
Hernandez-Rauda contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider his mitigating arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. 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 considered Hernandez-Rauda’s arguments and
the applicable section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Hernandez-Rauda next contends that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Hernandez-Rauda’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section
3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Hernandez-Rauda’s
immigration history and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see
also United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 135 S. Ct. 2848 (2015) (district court “reasonably concluded” that the need
for deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors and “required a sentence at least
equal to [the defendant’s] last illegal re-entry sentence”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --