Opinion
No. 07-30498.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 23, 2008.
Marcia Good Hurd, Esq., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven C. Babcock, Esq., FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant;-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Richard F. Cebull, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-07-00093-1-RFC.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Juan Zamora-Meraz appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Zamora-Meraz contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately discuss or analyze factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, by placing excessive weight on the Sentencing Guidelines, and by failing to discuss mitigating circumstances. Because Zamora-Meraz did not object on these grounds in district court, plain error review applies. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008). We conclude that Zamora-Meraz cannot show "a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence" absent any procedural error. See id. at 762.
Zamora-Meraz further contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Zamora-Meraz's criminal history, the sentence, at the lowend of the applicable Guidelines range, is reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).