United States v. Adolfo Flores-Cortes

MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Adolfo Flores-Cortes challenges his 40-month sentence for illegal reentry on two theories of procedural error. Flores-Cortes argues that: (1) the district judge improperly based the sentence on a factual finding that Flores-Cortes’ 2006 illegal entry sentence was 39 months, when in actuality he received consecutive sentences for two separate and distinct offenses — 24 months for illegal entry and 15 months for violating supervised release from a 2003 conviction; and (2) the district judge improperly considered the cost to the government of Flores-Cortes’ previous and instant offenses. Because the district court did not commit procedural error, we affirm.

This court reviews a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.2010). A defendant’s opinion that a different sentence is appropriate does not justify reversal.

Flores-Cortes argues that his earlier 15-month revocation sentence was imposed only to punish a breach of the court’s trust, and that because he received only 24 months of custody for illegal entry at that time, 24 months ought to be the starting point for a deterrent sentence in this case.…