United States v. Guillermo Zavala-Bolanos

540 F. App'x 777
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 2, 2013
Docket12-50295
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 540 F. App'x 777 (United States v. Guillermo Zavala-Bolanos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Guillermo Zavala-Bolanos, 540 F. App'x 777 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Guillermo Zavala-Bolanos appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Zavala-Bolanos contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying *778 on the erroneous belief that he had multiple reentries. We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008), and find none. The record reflects that, although the district court referenced multiple reentries, it subsequently indicated that Zavala-Bola-nos had only one official deportation. Moreover, to the extent the district court erred, the error did not affect Zavala-Bolanos’s substantial rights. See id.

Zavala-Bolanos also contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to depart downward on the basis of his cultural assimilation. Our review of a district court’s exercise of discretion to depart or vary on the basis of cultural assimilation is subsumed in our review of whether the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421-22 (9th Cir.2011). The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Zavala-Bolanos’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including his criminal history and the need for deterrence. See id.

Zavala-Bolanos’s contention that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), was overruled is foreclosed. See United States v. Valdovinos-Mendez, 641 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Zavala-Bolanos v. United States
134 S. Ct. 1048 (Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
540 F. App'x 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-guillermo-zavala-bolanos-ca9-2013.