United States v. Zamora-Guerra

── United States v. Zamora-Guerra ── Case No.: 24-2173 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 11, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-2173 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 11, 2026 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 24-2173 v. GUSTAVO ZAMORA-GUERRA, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (D.C. No. 2:24-CR-01062-MIS-1) _________________________________ Submitted on the briefs: * Violet N.D. Edelman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, New Mexico for Defendant-Appellant Gustavo Zamora-Guerra Tiffany L. Walters, Assistant United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Ryan Ellison, United States Attorney, with her on the brief) for Plaintiff-Appellee United States of America _________________________________ Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, EBEL and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ CARSON, Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.  Appellate Case: 24-2173 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 2 _________________________________ When we review a sentence for substantive reasonableness, we examine the totality of the circumstances, which includes the extent of a variance the district court makes from the Guideline sentencing range. Although we may presume a sentence within the Guideline range is reasonable, we do not presume a sentence is unreasonable when a district court varies from the Guideline range. We review the sentence for abuse of discretion and give due deference to the district court’s decision that the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) justify the extent of the variance. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court sentenced Defendant Gustavo Zamora-Guerra to twenty-four months’ imprisonment when the sentencing guidelines advised a range of eight to fourteen months’ imprisonment. Whether we would have imposed that same sentence on Defendant makes no difference. Instead, we must consider whether the district court thoroughly addressed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, provided compelling reasons for its upward variance, and gave Defendant a sentence well within the bounds of permissible choice. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. I. United States Border Patrol officers found Defendant hiding in brush near Sunland Park, New Mexico. Defendant admitted to being a Mexican citizen with no legal authorization to enter the United States. The government charged him with one count of 2  Appellate Case: 24-2173 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 3 illegal reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b). Defendant entered into an 11(c)(1)(C) fast-track ple