Case ID: f-appx_523/html/0464-01.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. Marvin G. SCHARFF, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10286.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2013.
    
    Filed June 13, 2013.
    Karon Virginia Johnson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Ha-gatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alexander Modaber, Esquire, John T. Gorman, Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Mong-mong, GU, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marvin G. Scharff appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 100-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Scharff contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his mitigating arguments and by failing to explain adequately why it denied his request for a downward variance. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Scharffs mitigating arguments and adequately explained the sentence in light of the seriousness of the offense and other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

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