United States v. Roberto Guzman
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Roberto Hernandez Guzman appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a single count of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, illegal reentry. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Because the arguments Guzman now raises on appeal were not first raised in district court, we review for plain error. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Ellsworth, 456 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir.2006).
We conclude that the district court committed no error at all. In calculating separately Guzman’s sentence for a probation violation and Guzman’s sentence for a new offense, the district court properly followed controlling authority. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, cmt. n. 11; United States v. Palmer, 946 F.2d 97, 99 (9th Cir.1991). The district court did not err in awarding Guzman separate criminal history points for sentences imposed on different days. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2); see also United States v. Gonzalez, 739 F.3d 420, 421-23, 2013 WL 4792952, at *1 (9th Cir.2013).
Guzman’s contention that the district court erred in finding that he committed the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence is unsupported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
544 F. App'x 702 (United States v. Roberto Guzman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.