United States v. Barrera-Mondragon

── United States v. Barrera-Mondragon ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-3758 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:24-cr-00164-DCN-1 v. MEMORANDUM* LUIS ENRIQUE BARRERA- MONDRAGON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Luis Enrique Barrera-Mondragon appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 23-month sentence imposed upon his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of distributing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) * 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). and (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Barrera-Mondragon contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court took contradictory positions on the “central sentencing dispute” of whether Barrera-Mondragon would be deported following completion of his sentence. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record does not support Barrera-Mondragon’s characterization of the significance of the deportation issue to the court’s sentencing decision. The court weighed myriad mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the 23-month sentence. To the extent it considered Barrera-Mondragon’s deportation status, it viewed it as mitigating. In any event, the court’s treatment of Barrera-Mondragon’s deportation status was not contradictory; the court reasonably observed that, though Barrera-Mondragon was not yet subject to an immigration detainer, his deportation following his release was almost certain. On this record, the court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 25-3758