United States v. Roberto Guzman

544 F. App'x 702
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 1, 2013
Docket12-50529
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 544 F. App'x 702 (United States v. Roberto Guzman) 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. Roberto Guzman, 544 F. App'x 702 (9th Cir. 2013).

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

Related

Guzman v. United States
134 S. Ct. 1349 (Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
544 F. App'x 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-roberto-guzman-ca9-2013.