NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10507
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00784-CKJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BASILIO PARRA-GUZMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Basilio Parra-Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
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).
Parra-Guzman contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to explain his sentence adequately and by failing to respond to his mitigating
arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,
608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The district
court was not required to mention each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to show
that it had considered them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc). Contrary to Parra-Guzman’s argument, the district court
explicitly considered his reasons for returning to the United States, his previous
sentence for illegal reentry, and his criminal history. The district court addressed
Parra-Guzman’s mitigating arguments and did not err by failing to provide a fuller
explanation. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).
Parra-Guzman also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light
of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including Parra-Guzman’s criminal history and his unlawful return to the United
States just months after serving a 24-month sentence for a prior illegal reentry
conviction. See United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.
2015).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-10507