United States of America v. Adrian Zitlalpopoca- Hernandez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN ZITLALPOPOCA-
HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50167
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-04304-BEN-1
Southern District of California,
San Diego
ORDER
Before: W. FLETCHER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,*
Chief District Judge.
The court’s memorandum disposition filed September 26, 2017, is hereby
amended as follows:
The fifth paragraph of the memorandum disposition previously read:
Finally, appellant argues that his sentence was substantively
unreasonable. A sentence is not substantively unreasonable where “the
record as a whole reflects rational and meaningful consideration of the
factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio,
657 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). The record
here reflects meaningful consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
spanning three sentencing proceedings. The sentence was not substantively
unreasonable.
FILED
OCT 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* The Honorable Nancy Freudenthal, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

The memorandum disposition is amended so that the fifth paragraph now
reads:
Because we reverse and remand on procedural grounds, we do not
reach the question of whether the sentence was substantively reasonable.
See, e.g., United States v. Grissom, 525 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2008).
With that amendment, Defendant-Appellant’s petition for panel rehearing is
DENIED. The petition for rehearing en banc remains pending. No further petitions
for rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed.
2

-- 2 of 2 --