USA V. BENITO LOAIZA-PARRA, No. 14-10492 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 25 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 14-10492 14-10544 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. v. BENITO LOAIZA-PARRA, a.k.a. Jose Martinez-Gutierrez, 2:13-cr-456-MMD 2:13-cr-401-GMN MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted September 21, 2015** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Benito Loaiza-Parra appeals the 30-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, and the 24* 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). month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Loaiza-Parra argues that the sentences are substantively unreasonable in light of his difficult history and circumstances, and other mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Loaiza-Parra’s sentences. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Loaiza-Parra’s extensive criminal and immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; 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 14-10492 & 14-10544

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.