Case ID: f-appx_710/html/0296-02.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. Selena PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-50036
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 19, 2018
    
      Janaki Gandhi, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Zandra Luz Lopez, Attorney, Sarah Rose Weinman, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc,, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Selena Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 100-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address her mitigating arguments and by failing to appreciate its discretion to vary from the Guidelines on policy grounds under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), we conclude that the district court did not err. The record reflects that the district court considered Perez’s mitigating arguments and departed downward in response. Moreover, the record shows that the district court understood its discretion to vary from the Guidelines on policy grounds but chose not to exercise that discretion. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011).

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