United States v. 2020-01-10 | 19-50211 | USA V. JULIE MORENO-GUZMAN | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JULIE MORENO-GUZMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-50211

D.C. No. 3:18-cr-05419-LAB-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

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.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

JAN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-50211
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.
AFFIRMED.