United States v. Jose Amparo-Palomares
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
These consolidated appeals concern Jose Edgar Amparo-Palomares' ("Amparo") consecutive sentences for (1) illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 ; and (2) violating the terms of supervised release from a prior illegal reentry conviction. We affirm.
(1) The district court did not procedurally err in considering evidence regarding Amparo's 2005 conviction for false imprisonment by fraud or deceit in violation of California Penal Code §~ 236, 237(a).
"[I]n determining the particular sentence to be imposed," the district court was required to "consider-.., the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant." 18 U.s.c. § 3553(a)(2)(c). A defendant's "potential for danger to the community [is thus] a § 3553(a)(2) factor that may properly be considered" by a sentencing judge. United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 , 1175 n. 3 (9th Cir.2006). In making that determination, the district court was entitled to look beyond the record of conviction to determine whethei the facts supporting Amparo's arrest suggested he would pose such a danger. See, e.g., United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094 , 1104 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2013).