Case ID: f-appx_465/html/0633-01.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. Mayra MARTINEZ-PARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10109.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 5, 2012.
    Keslie Stewart, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, Barbara Yalliere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jerome Matthews, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mayra Martinez-Parra appeals from the 27-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Parra contends that her fully consecutive sentence is substantively unreasonable. The consecutive sentence is consistent with the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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