USA V. BASILIO PARRA-GUZMAN, No. 17-10507 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-10507 D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00784-CKJ v. MEMORANDUM* BASILIO PARRA-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Basilio Parra-Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 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). Parra-Guzman contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain his sentence adequately and by failing to respond to his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The district court was not required to mention each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to show that it had considered them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Contrary to Parra-Guzman’s argument, the district court explicitly considered his reasons for returning to the United States, his previous sentence for illegal reentry, and his criminal history. The district court addressed Parra-Guzman’s mitigating arguments and did not err by failing to provide a fuller explanation. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). Parra-Guzman also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Parra-Guzman’s criminal history and his unlawful return to the United States just months after serving a 24-month sentence for a prior illegal reentry conviction. See United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2015). AFFIRMED. 2 17-10507
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.
