Narrative Opinion Summary
Chalena Mendoza appeals a 21-month sentence following her guilty plea for transporting illegal aliens, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)(I)(B)(i). The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the lower court's decision. Mendoza argues that the district court improperly enhanced her sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6), claiming insufficient factual support for the enhancement, and asserts that the court applied an incorrect legal standard. The court finds these arguments unmeritorious, referencing U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6), comment note 5, and the precedent set in United States v. Miguel, 368 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2004). The decision is affirmed, noted as not suitable for publication and not serving as precedent except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court's authority to review the lower court's decision is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the lower court's decision.
Precedent and Legal Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court relies on existing precedent and comments from U.S.S.G. to dismiss Mendoza's arguments regarding sentence enhancement.
Reasoning: The court finds these arguments unmeritorious, referencing U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6), comment note 5, and the precedent set in United States v. Miguel, 368 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2004).
Publication and Precedential Valuesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is noted as not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined in specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed, noted as not suitable for publication and not serving as precedent except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Sentence Enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's enhancement of Mendoza's sentence is upheld despite her claims of insufficient factual support and incorrect legal standard application.
Reasoning: Mendoza argues that the district court improperly enhanced her sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6), claiming insufficient factual support for the enhancement, and asserts that the court applied an incorrect legal standard.