UNITED STATES v. ZAMARRIPA (2020)

In 2016, Eduardo Zamarripa pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to six months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. His supervised release began in January 2017, and he was subsequently deported to Mexico. The district court revoked Zamarripa’s term of supervised release and sentenced him at the high end of the policy statement range to 24 months of imprisonment and to one year of supervised release.

Zamarripa argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain its sentence adequately, in light of his nonfrivolous argument for a lesser sentence. We review for plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Zamarripa fails to establish reversible plain error, as the district court’s comments at sentencing reflect that it weighed Zamarripa’s arguments for a lesser sentence but concluded that a high-end sentence was warranted, enabling this court to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); United States v. Diaz Sanchez, 714 F.3d 289, 294-95 (5th Cir. 2013); Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 264.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.