United States of America v. Zeus Apolo Guzman-Aguilar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ZEUS APOLO GUZMAN-AGUILAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-30019
D.C. No. 1:14-cr-00143-PA
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
OCT 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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.
15-30019 2

-- 2 of 2 --