United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2717

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Juan Juarez-Colmenero

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: May 10, 2021

Filed: June 25, 2021 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 

Juan Juarez-Colmenero pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien in possession

of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5) and 924(a)(2), and was sentenced to 84 months
in prison. He appeals, arguing the district court1

 imposed a substantively

unreasonable sentence. We affirm.

Juarez-Colmenero was arrested after police discovered drugs, drug

paraphernalia, and two guns in his car. One of those guns had a defaced serial

number and a magazine that could hold 16 rounds. He pleaded guilty to being an

illegal alien in possession of a firearm, and the U.S. Probation Office assessed him

a total offense level of 25, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 84 to 105 months. 

The district court sentenced him to 84 months in prison.

Juarez-Colmenero argues that the district court committed a clear error of

judgment in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and imposing a bottom-of-theGuidelines sentence. He says the district court should have varied downward because

his offense was non-violent, he had not previously served time in prison, and his 16-

round magazine put him just over the threshold for an enhancement under

§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)(I). He also argues the advisory Guidelines range is better suited to

those with histories of violent felonies, which he does not have. Finally, he says there

is no need to protect the public because he promised not to illegally reenter the United

States.

We review sentences first for procedural error and, finding no error, for

substantive unreasonableness under “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). Juarez-Colmenero does not argue

procedural error, so we will only address substantive unreasonableness. We presume

Juarez-Colmenero’s within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable. See United States

v. Harris, 964 F.3d 718, 725 (8th Cir. 2020). 

1The Honorable Roseann Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-
We find no clear error of judgment in the district court’s weighing of the

§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009)

(en banc). The record reflects that the district court considered all of the factors and

responded to each of Juarez-Colmenero’s arguments, even acknowledging that he

persuaded the court to impose a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence. “The mere fact

that the court could have weighed the sentencing factors differently does not amount

to an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373, 375 (8th Cir. 2016). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-