United States of America v. Juan Carlos Lopez-Guzman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ-GUZMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 15-10360
15-10361
D.C. Nos. 2:14-cr-00341-KJD
2:15-cr-00143-KJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Juan Carlos Lopez-Guzman appeals the 41-
month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported
alien found unlawfully in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and
the eight-month, consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised
FILED
JUN 21 2016
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 --

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez-Guzman contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to explain the sentences adequately and to consider the applicable sentencing
factors. With respect to the revocation sentence, he contends that the court erred
by relying on improper sentencing factors and on clearly erroneous facts. 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 Lopez-Guzman’s arguments and the applicable sentencing factors, did
not rely on any improper factor or clearly erroneous facts, and adequately
explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).
Lopez-Guzman next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
in light of the circumstances and staleness of his prior alien smuggling offense.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The 49-month aggregate sentence is substantively reasonable in
light of the 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including the need to deter Lopez-Guzman from future criminal
activity. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
15-10360 & 15-10361 2

-- 2 of 2 --