Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian VALDEZ-ARAGON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-27
Citations: 475 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 11-10475
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Julian VALDEZ-ARAGON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Julian VALDEZ-ARAGON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-10475.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 27, 2012.
Patrick Michael Walsh, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assis tant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Julian Valdez-Aragon appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valdez-Aragon contends that the district court failed to appreciate its discretion to vary downward from the Guidelines range based on the 18 U.S.C. § 8558(a) sentencing factors. This contention is unpersuasive. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (rejecting claim of error where the district judge "gave no indication that he felt bound by the Guidelines range or bound to treat the Guidelines sentence as presumptively reasonable").
Valdez-Aragon also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.