United States v. Valencia-Guillen, 053116 FED9, 14-10461

Docket Nº:14-10461
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANCISCO JAVIER VALENCIA-GUILLEN, a.k.a. Francisco Javier Valencia, a.k.a. Francisco Valencia-Guillen, Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:May 31, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANCISCO JAVIER VALENCIA-GUILLEN, a.k.a. Francisco Javier Valencia, a.k.a. Francisco Valencia-Guillen, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-10461

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 31, 2016

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted May 24, 2016 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court No. 4:14-cr-00529-JAS for the District of Arizona James A. Soto, District Judge, Presiding

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Francisco Javier Valencia-Guillen appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens for profit, and harboring illegal aliens for profit, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valencia-Guillen contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to resolve his objections to the presentence report, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B); (2) relying on hearsay statements contained in law enforcement reports; and (3) applying the preponderance of the evidence standard when imposing contested sentencing enhancements. We review for plain error, see United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013), and find none. The court satisfied Rule 32 by explicitly overruling all of Valencia-Guillen's objections and adopting the reasoning contained in the government's response and the addendum to the presentence report. See United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the hearsay statements made by codefendants and witnesses were consistent...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP