United States v. Julie Moreno-Guzman
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50211 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-05419-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JULIE MORENO-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Julie Moreno-Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Moreno-Guzman contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider adequately or discuss her arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence. The district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia- Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the district court expressly considered Moreno-Guzman’s mitigating arguments but explained that a within-Guidelines sentence was nonetheless warranted in light of the aggravating factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc). The fact that the court did not give more substantial weight to the mitigating factors does not mean that it did not consider them.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-50211