T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. G U STA V O M EN D O ZA - BU STO S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 10463 D. C . No . 2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 4 1 1 - L DG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da L l oy d D . G e or ge , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y15, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , G R A B E R , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G ust avo M endo za -B ust os appeal s f rom the 70 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f ordi s tr i but i on of

ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e a nd pos s e s s i on of

ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 

# FI LED MA Y21 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 10463 2 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( vi i i ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, a n dw e a f

f i rm. M e ndoz a - B us t os c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtpr oc e dur a l l ye rr e d byf a i l i ng to e x p la in a d e q u a te lyth e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . T h e r e c o r db e lie s th is c o n te n tio n . M e n d o z a - B u s to s n e x t c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e db yf a ilin g to m a k e a n yf

in d in g s o f

f a c t, o rto c o n du c t a n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g , r e g a r d in g h is as se rt i on thatthe go vernm ent ’ s r ef usalt o m ov e f

or a s ent ence re du ct i on un der U . S . S . G . § 5 K 1. 1 w as base d o n a desi re t o p un i sh hi m for notent er i ng i nt o a pl ea a g r e e m e n t. T h e c o u rt w a s n o t r e q u ir e dto c o n du c t a n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g , o rto m ake f i nd i ng s of f

ac t , because M endo za -B ust os di d n otm ake a“ subst ant i al thres ho l d sho w i ng ” thatthe go vernm enthad u ncon st i tut i on al m ot i ves or a ct ed a rb itr a r ily . See W

ade v . U ni ted States , 5 0 4 U .S . 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 - 8 6 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; see a l so U ni te d States v . Mur

phy , 65 F . 3d 758, 764 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( “ M a i nt a i ni ng the ef fe ct i veness of the pl eanego t i at i on proces s i s al egi t i m at e gov ernm ent al in te r e s t.” ) . F in a lly , M e n d o z a - B u s to s c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab l e . I n l i g h to f th e t o t a l i tyo f

th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s a n dth e 1 8 U . S. C.11- 10463 3 § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s , M e n d o z a - B u s to s ’s w ith in - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . AF F I RME D.