Case ID: f-appx_558/html/0750-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Olivera ZAPIEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10260.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 27, 2014.
    Olusere Olowoyeye, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Olivera Zapien appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 121-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Zapien contends that the district court erred at sentencing by relying on a clearly erroneous fact, namely, that his codefen-dants were involved only with marijuana and not with methamphetamine. We review for plain error. See United States v. Burgum, 633 F.3d 810, 812 (9th Cir.2011). Zapien’s argument fails because he has not established a reasonable probability that his sentence would have been different absent the error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008).

Zapien also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the disparities between his sentence and those of his codefendants. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.