UNITED STATES v. CERECER CASTRO (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Ada Selene Cerecer-Castro appeals her sentence on the ground that the district court did not adequately state the reasons for the sentence it imposed. The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cerecer-Castro did not object to the district court's explanation at the sentencing hearing, so we review for plain error. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 554 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008). We find none. The district court stated that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ memoranda, and it asked the government to speak to Cerecer-Castro's culpability as compared with her husband's. The district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, rejecting Cerecer-Castro's argument that she was less culpable than her husband. It found that her offense was harmful, that she abused her border crossing card, that she used her children to facilitate the offense, and that she was minimizing her responsibility. The district court did not plainly err in considering the relevant factors and imposing a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1964, 201 L.Ed.2d 359 (2018) (“When a judge applies a sentence within the Guidelines range, he or she often does not need to provide a lengthy explanation.”).

AFFIRMED.