NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SONIA L. MEZQUITA VEGA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 23-1476

D.C. No.

2:20-cr-00120-RSM-6

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 9, 2024**

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Sonia L. Mezquita Vega appeals her 44-month sentence for her involvement 

in a scheme to launder money obtained from the illicit sale of drugs. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 11 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-1476

Mezquita Vega raises a procedural objection to her sentence, arguing that 

the district court “failed to adequately explain the reasons for its sentencing 

decision” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 because it did not “mention[] her sentence in 

comparison to the other defendants who had been sentenced prior to her.” When a 

defendant does not object to a district court’s sentencing explanation, as is the case 

here, this court reviews for plain error. United States v. Perez, 962 F.3d 420, 454 

(9th Cir. 2020). “Plain error is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects 

substantial rights.” See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 

2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Mezquita Vega cannot satisfy the first prong of plain error review, that the 

district court erred. She does not identify any authority holding that, when 

imposing a sentence, a district court judge must specifically articulate reasons for 

why a defendant’s sentence is higher than the sentences of her co-defendants. At 

sentencing, the district court was required to “state in open court the reasons for its 

imposition of the particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). Here, the district court 

explained that it was “mindful” that it had “already sentenced other individuals in 

this case” and that it “must take that into account in terms of fashioning a sentence 

that is proportionate to [Mezquita Vega’s] involvement.” The district court also 

explained that it had reviewed both parties’ sentencing memorandums and the 

presentence investigation report, and that it “looked carefully at all the 3553(a) 
3 23-1476

factors.” Considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court found that Mezquita 

Vega committed a “serious offense” because “the only reason the drug business 

survives is because of the money that comes with it.” It acknowledged that 

“Mezquita Vega and the other couriers involved in this case were not getting the 

sums of money that these spreadsheets reflect. They were getting a very small 

amount in return for their involvement.” Finally, it credited Mezquita Vega for 

“walking away from all of this at a period of time when other people had not.” The 

district court’s explanation sufficiently “communicate[d] that the parties’

arguments have been heard, and that a reasoned decision has been made,” as 

required by § 3553. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(en banc).

Mezquita Vega also argues that, in calculating her guidelines range, “the 

district court did not make a reasonable estimate of the total of the laundered 

funds.” We review a district court’s factual determination of the amount of loss for 

clear error. United States v. Walter-Eze, 869 F.3d 891, 912 (9th Cir. 2017). 

Mezquita Vega presented no evidence at sentencing to rebut the government’s 

evidence that she was directly or indirectly responsible for over $2.4 million in 

laundered funds. Given the lack of controverting evidence, the district court did not 

clearly err because it made a “reasonable estimate of the loss based on the 

available information” presented at sentencing. See id. (quoting United States v. 
4 23-1476

Zolp, 479 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2007)).

AFFIRM.