NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS2 23

- 1476

Mezquita Vega raises a procedural objection to her sentence, arguing that
the district court “f

ailed 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 sentenc ing 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 erro r 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
“M ezquita 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 distri ct 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.