Case ID: f-appx_305/html/0435-01.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. Ignacio Lara VALENCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-30419.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 29, 2008.
    Kathleen Louise Bickers, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert M. Stone, Attorney at Law P.C., Medford, OR, for Defendanf-Appellant.
    Ignacio Lara Valencia, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ignacio Lara Valencia appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distributing over 50 grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valencia contends that the district court clearly erred when it imposed a two-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l), for possessing a dangerous weapon, because the government failed to show Valencia had constructive possession over a weapon. Because there is a sufficient connection between Valencia and one of the weapons involved to support the inference that he exercised dominion and control over a weapon, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err. Cf. United States v. Kelso, 942 F.2d 680, 682 (9th Cir.1991).

Valencia also contends that his sentence is greater than necessary in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Given the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Valencia’s sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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