Case ID: f-appx_314/html/0088-01.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. Mario Alexander BOCONOVICK-URBINA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-10196.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2009.
    Jesse Figueroa, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Mark Francis Willimann, The Law Office of Mark F. Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Alexander Boconovick-Urbina appeals from the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Boconovick-Urbina contends that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment when it increased his sentencing range based on facts that were neither admitted by him nor proven to a jury. This contention fails because Boconovick-Urbina was sentenced well below the statutory maximum. See United States v. Dare, 425 F.3d 634, 640-41 (9th Cir.2005).

Boconovick-Urbina also contends for the first time in his reply brief that his sentence is unreasonable. We decline to address this contention. See United States v. Puerto, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 n. 1 (9th Cir.1992).

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