Court Opinion

ID: 3132635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-19 21:01:14.954949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:54:30.350679
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             OCT 19 2015

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-30019

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:14-cr-00143-PA

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ZEUS APOLO GUZMAN-AGUILAR,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                     Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted October 14, 2015**

Before:        SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Zeus Apolo Guzman-Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Guzman-Aguilar first argues that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to address his mitigating arguments and discuss its application of the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 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 addressed Guzman-Aguilar’s arguments and

explained that the sentence was appropriate in light of the applicable sentencing

factors. See United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (9th Cir.

2009).

      Next, Guzman-Aguilar asserts that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable, referencing the “alternative” Guidelines range that would have

applied had his reentry offense and his recent state drug-trafficking offense been

prosecuted together in federal court. We review a claim that a sentence is

substantively unreasonable for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In light of Guzman-Aguilar’s criminal and immigration

history, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a low-end sentence of 57

months. See id.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    15-30019