Case ID: f-appx_548/html/0431-01.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. Lionel ALVAREZ, a.k.a. Frog, a.k.a. Frogdog, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50173.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 6, 2013.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Lizabeth Ann Rhodes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Julie Jane Shemitz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    
      Richard Dale Rome, Law Offices of Richard D. Rome, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lionel Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 189-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alvarez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his circumstances, including his learning disability and nonviolent history, and because the sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Alvarez’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 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Alvarez’s prior drug trafficking conviction and the seriousness of the offense. See id.

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