United States of America v. Felipe Zamora-Villela

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FELIPE ZAMORA-VILLELA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50595
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02571-JAH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Felipe Zamora-Villela appeals from the 36-month mandatory minimum
sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for bringing in illegal aliens
for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), bringing in illegal
aliens without presentation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii), and
FILED
JAN 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50595 2
aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Zamora-Villela contends that because 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) permits a district
court to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum, the district court erred by
imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. Zamora-Villela’s contention is
foreclosed by United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2010)
(Subsection (a) of section 3553 does not authorize a court to impose a sentence
below the mandatory statutory minimum).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --