USA V. EDGAR MAZAHUA-CORTES, No. 14-10038 (9th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-10038 D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01022-CKJ v. MEMORANDUM* EDGAR MAZAHUA-CORTES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge, Presiding** Submitted March 10, 2015*** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Edgar Mazahua-Cortes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-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 Honorable Marvin E. Aspen, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Mazahua-Cortes contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to (i) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (ii) explain the reasons for the sentence and its rejection of his mitigating arguments. 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 the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Mazahua-Cortes’s mitigating arguments, and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the statutory sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 14-10038

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.