USA V. HECTOR DELGADO-ZUNIGA, No. 18-10185 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-10185 D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00312-KJD v. HECTOR DELGADO-ZUNIGA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Hector Delgado-Zuniga appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-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. 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). Delgado-Zuniga argues that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because his personal circumstances warranted a below-Guidelines sentence and his 2003 felony conviction, which triggered an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B), was so stale as to render the Guidelines range unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court explicitly considered Delgado-Zuniga’s mitigating arguments and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence that – unlike the sentence in United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009) – properly reflects the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Delgado-Zuniga’s numerous prior removals from the United States and his failure to be deterred by a lengthy prior sentence for illegal reentry. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 18-10185
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.
