United States of America v. Yuris Bonilla-Guizar, a.k.a. Yuris Barillo-Guizar; CARLOS ARMANDO CALIXTRO-BUSTAMANTE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YURIS BONILLA-GUIZAR, a.k.a. Yuris
Barillo-Guizar; CARLOS ARMANDO
CALIXTRO-BUSTAMANTE,
Defendants - Appellants.
Nos. 14-10166
14-10241
D.C. No. 4:09-cr-02343-FRZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
In these companion appeals, Yuris Bonilla-Guizar and Carlos Armando
Calixtro-Bustamante appeal from their 144-month sentences. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in both cases.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Bonilla-Guizar’s request
for oral argument is denied.
FILED
MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-10166 & 14-10241
In Appeal No. 14-10166, Bonilla-Guizar contends that the district court
procedurally erred and violated his constitutional rights by concluding that his
postsentencing rehabilitation did not warrant a downward variance. This claim
fails. The record belies Bonilla-Guizar’s contention that the district court denied
his request based on his custodial status. Rather, the court considered Bonilla-
Guizar’s request and sufficiently explained its determination that Bonilla-Guizar’s
conduct in prison was not so exceptional as to warrant a downward variance. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Bonilla-Guizar next contends that the district judge engaged in vindictive
resentencing and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence in light of the fact
that his initial sentence was at the low end of the Guidelines range, but his current
sentence is near the high end of the recalculated Guidelines range. We disagree.
No presumption of vindictiveness arises because Bonilla-Guizar’s overall sentence
has not been increased, and he has adduced no evidence of actual vindictiveness.
See United States v. Horob, 735 F.3d 866, 870-72 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, the
district court’s imposition of a high-end sentence was not an abuse of discretion in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See Gall v. United States, 552

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-10166 & 14-10241
U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
In Appeal No. 14-10241, Calixtro-Bustamante contends that the district
court erred by denying him a two-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility
under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Contrary to Calixtro-Bustamante’s argument, the record
reflects that the court did not deny the adjustment based solely on his decision to
go to trial. Rather, it also noted Calixtro-Bustamante’s failure to accept
responsibility for his role in the offense. The court did not clearly err in denying
the adjustment. See United States v. Rojas-Pedroza, 716 F.3d 1253, 1270 (9th
Cir. 2013).
Finally, Calixtro-Bustamante contends that the district court erred by failing
sua sponte to grant him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. In light
of the facts, including Calixtro-Bustamante keeping hostages in his home and
calling their family members to demand money in exchange for their release, the
district court did not clearly err by failing to grant the adjustment. See United
States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2010).
Calixtro-Bustamante’s unopposed motion to supplement the record is
granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --