USA V. CELEDONIO ARZATE-BARRERA, No. 13-50574 (9th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-50574 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00383-ABC v. MEMORANDUM* CELEDONIO ARZATE-BARRERA, a.k.a. Celedonio Arzate, a.k.a. Celedonio Barrera Arzate, a.k.a. Celedonio AzateBarrera, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2015** Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Celedonio Arzate-Barrera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 50-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for * 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). being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Arzate-Barrera contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his history and circumstances, namely, the significant trauma and tragedies he and his family suffered. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the Arzate-Barrera’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 50-month sentence, which represents a 20-month downward variance from the bottom of the Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 13-50574

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.