Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0187-01.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. David Michael JIMENEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-50256.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 27, 2012.
    Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Fred W. Slaughter, Assistant U.S., AUSA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Santa Ana Branch Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alexander Griggs, Law Office of Alexander Griggs, San Pedro, CA, Fredricco McCurry, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Michael Jimenez appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jimenez contends that the district court proeedurally erred by basing his sentence on internet research. This contention is belied by the record because the court did not impose sentence on the basis of internet research. There was no plain error.

Jimenez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 53-60, 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.