United States v. Eduardo Munoz-Camarena
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Defendant-Appellant Eduardo Munoz-Camarena (“Appellant”) appeals his sentence for attempted entry after removal. Appellant makes four contentions that the district court committed significant procedural error in resentencing on remand. We review purported procedural error for abuse of discretion. United States v. Spangle, 626 F.3d 488, 497 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 186 , 181 L.Ed.2d 95 (2011). We affirm.
First, Appellant urges that the district court erred by varying upward from the Guidelines sentencing range without sufficient explanation. The record reveals that the district court permissibly based the upward variance on the nature and similarity of Appellant’s prior immigration convictions. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.2009); cf. United States v. Segura-Del Real, 83 F.3d 275, 277-78 (9th Cir.1996) (district court may consider repetitive immigration violations in calculating upward departure from the Guidelines). The district court’s explanation for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence was sufficient. See United States v. Hilgers, 560 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.2009).