United States v. Ada Cerecer-Castro

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10314
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos.
4:19-cr-01333-JGZ-EJM-2
v. 4:19-cr-01333-JGZ-EJM
ADA SELENE CERECER-CASTRO,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
Ada Selene Cerecer-Castro appeals her sentence on the ground that the
district court did not adequately state the reasons for the sentence it imposed. The
parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cerecer-Castro did not object to the district court’s explanation at the
sentencing hearing, so we review for plain error. See United States v. Waknine,
543 F.3d 546, 554 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008). We find none. The district court stated that
it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ memoranda, and
it asked the government to speak to Cerecer-Castro’s culpability as compared with
her husband’s. The district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, rejecting
Cerecer-Castro’s argument that she was less culpable than her husband. It found
that her offense was harmful, that she abused her border crossing card, that she
used her children to facilitate the offense, and that she was minimizing her
responsibility. The district court did not plainly err in considering the relevant
factors and imposing a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. See
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1964 (2018) (“When a judge
applies a sentence within the Guidelines range, he or she often does not need to
provide a lengthy explanation.”).
AFFIRMED.
2