N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOEL M AZARIEGOS-SOTO, a .k.a . Joe l M a z arie g os-Pe re z , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10129

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00898-SR B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Joe l M a z arie gos-Soto a

ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 60-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for one c ount of c o nspira c y

to c om m i t m one y

la unde ring, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1956(a )(1)(B )(i) and (h); a nd one c ount of c onspira c y to tra nsport a nd ha rbor ille g a l a lie ns, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), a nd (v)(I). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . M a z arie g os-Soto c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt im

prope rly re stric t e d his attorne y ’ s a

rgum e nt during sente nc ing, the re by viola ting Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e d ure 32, 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a), and his rights to due proc e ss a nd the a ssista

nc e of c ounse l. R e vie wing de novo, se eUnite d State s v . Stote rau , 524 F.3d 988, 1011 (9th C ir. 2008), we c onc l u de that the c ourt did not viola te R ule 32 or M a z arie gosSoto’ s rights be c a

use it pe rm itte d c ounse l to a rgue for a be low-Guide l ine s se nte nc e unde r the se c tion 3553(a

) se nte nc ing fa c tors. Se eFe d . R . C rim . P. 32(i)(1)(C ); Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba n c ). M a z arie g os-Soto ne xt a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by a pply ing a nine le ve l, rat he r tha n a six-le ve l, e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(C ). C ontra ry to M a z arie gos-Soto’ s a

rgum e nt, the e nha

nc e m e nt did not ne e d to be supporte d by c le ar and c onvinc ing e vide nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Dare , 425 F.3d 634, 642 (9th C ir. 2005). A preponde ranc e of the e vide nc e supports the e nha nc e m e nt. Se eid. M a z arie g os-Soto fina lly argue s tha t his se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a s ona

ble , in pa rt be c a use the c ourt ga

ve the Guide line s c a lc ulation le ss we ight 1 4 - 1 0 1 2 9 2tha

n the othe r se c tion 3553(a

) fa c tors. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in im

posing se nte nc e . Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guide line s se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

se c tion 3553(a ) se nte nc ing fa c tors a nd the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, inc luding M a z arie gos-Soto’ s role in, a nd the e xte nt of, thec o nspira c y . Se eGall , 552 U.S. a t 51; se e also Unite d State

s v . Gutie rre

z-Sanc he z , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ The we ight to begive n the va rious fa c tors in a

pa rtic ula r c a s e is for the disc re tion of the distric t c ourt.” ). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 0 1 2 9 3