United States v. 2020-01-14 | 18-50429 | USA V. GUADALUPE BELTRAN-ARAIZA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GUADALUPE BELTRAN-ARAIZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50429

D.C. No. 3:18-cr-03160-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.

Guadalupe Beltran-Araiza appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 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 14 2020

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

2 18-50429
Beltran-Araiza argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of his familial obligations, his employment history, the allegedly non-violent
nature of his criminal history, and his expectation that he would receive a more
substantial fast-track departure. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including Beltran-Araiza’s significant criminal and immigration
history and his failure to be deterred by prior sentences for illegal reentry. See
United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015).
Moreover, Beltran-Araiza has not shown that his sentence creates an unwarranted
sentencing disparity with any similarly situated defendant. See United States v.
Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.