Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0396-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan JUAREZ-LOZANO, a.k.a. Juan Juarez-Losano, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10154.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
    Robert Andrew Fellrath, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Howard Messing, Messing Law Offices, PLC, Victoria Trull, Victoria Trull, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Juarez-Lozano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Juarez-Lozano contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the five-month sentence he received for a prior immigration offense, his motivations for returning, the cost to the taxpayers of incarcerating him, and the impact the sentence will have on his family. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Juarez-Lozano’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Notwithstanding the length of Juarez-Loza-no’s previous sentence, his current sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Juarez-Lozano’s criminal and immigration history. See id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.