Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar MAZAHUA-CORTES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-17
Citations: 597 F. App'x 951
Docket Number: No. 14-10038
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar MAZAHUA-CORTES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 951–951

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar MAZAHUA-CORTES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10038.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 17, 2015.
Lawrence Lee, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Saul M. Huerta, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Edgar Mazahua-Cortes appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mazahua-Cortes contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to (i) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (ii) explain the reasons for the sentence and its rejection of his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Maza-hua-Cortes's mitigating arguments, and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the statutory sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.