Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0265-01.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. Alfonzo Hector PENA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30363.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 4, 2010.
    Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James B. Obie, Obie Law, P.C., Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfonzo Hector Pena appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to sell of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pena contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a) over-represents the seriousness of Pena’s past offenses and does not account for the nature and circumstances of the offense or Pena’s history and characteristics. The record reflects that the district court correctly determined that the career offender enhancement applies, that it has considered and addressed all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that it did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Diaz-Argueta, 564 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2009). The record further reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, Pena’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.Bd 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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