Case ID: f-appx_597/html/0460-01.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. Vanessa Elizabeth PALACIOS-CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10039.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 16, 2015.
    Michael Logalbo, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John D. Kaufmann, Esquire, Law Office of John D. Kaufmann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Pa-lacios-Cortez's request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vanessa Elizabeth Palacios-Cortez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 65-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii); and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1), (b)(1)(H). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Palacios-Cortez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) sentencing factors and by failing to explain adequately the sentence imposed, including its reasons for rejecting her request for a downward variance. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court considered the statutory sentencing factors and Palacios-Cortez’s arguments, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Palacios-Cortez also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of her personal circumstances and because the applicable Guidelines are arbitrarily harsh. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Palacios-Cortez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

Palacios-Cortez’s motion to remand for resentencing based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines is denied. Any motion respecting the applicability of Amendment 782 should be brought in the sentencing court in the first instance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

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