Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0471-02.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. Yong Cha LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30219
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 01, 2016
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Charlene Koski, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sarah Y. Vogel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Brett A. Purtzer, Attorney, Hester Law Group, Inc. P.S., Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ypng Cha Lee appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute a listed chemical, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(c)(2) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lee contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the fact that she will be deported to Korea following her incarceration, where she has no family except two elderly sisters. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Lee’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court varied downward 168 months to account for Lee’s deportability and other mitigating factors. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Lee’s decision to abscond from sentencing for almost 11 years. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.