UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julie MORENO-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: January 10, 2020
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Meghan Heesch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego County Office/Fed. Office Bldg., San Diego, CA, Zachary Howe, Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Mark F. Adams, Attorney, Mark F. Adams, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Julie Moreno-Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Moreno-Guzman contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider adequately or discuss her arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence. The district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the district court expressly considered Moreno-Guzman’s mitigating arguments but explained that a within-Guidelines sentence was nonetheless warranted in light of the aggravating factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The fact that the court did not give more substantial weight to the mitigating factors does not mean that it did not consider them.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.