Case ID: f-appx_404/html/0183-01.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. Anna Veronica MURRIETA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10465.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
    Anea Iulia Pop, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Firm Address: SUITE 4800 Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anna Veronica Murrieta appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Murrieta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider her individual circumstances and arguments for a lower sentence. The record indicates that the district court considered Murrieta’s arguments in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Murrieta also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), her sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993-94.

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