Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0418-01.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. Sonya Luella Leinani TUPOU, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10340
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    SEPTEMBER 29, 2017
    Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S., DOJ-Offlce of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Harlan Y. Kimura, Esquire, Harlan Y. Kimura, AAL, ALC, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, 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

Sonya Luella Leinani Tupou appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams of more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846; attempt to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams of more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), (d)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

For the first time on appeal, Tupou contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the sentence and by failing to consider her mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the district court considered Tupou’s arguments and thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Tupou next contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Tupou’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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