Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessika Adriana MENDOZA-CAZARES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-03
Citations: 551 F. App'x 398
Docket Number: No. 13-10226
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessika Adriana MENDOZA-CAZARES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessika Adriana MENDOZA-CAZARES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10226.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
Cory Michael Picton, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ramiro Flores, Jr., Law Office of Ramiro S. Flores Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, 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
Jessika Adriana Mendoza-Cazares appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 52-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute and importation of approximately 9.18 kilograms of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii) and 960(a)(1), (b)(1)(H). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mendoza-Cazares contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not properly account for her history and characteristics. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Mendoza-Cazares's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence 136 months below the low end of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.