Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anna Veronica MURRIETA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-22
Citations: 404 F. App'x 183
Docket Number: No. 09-10465
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anna Veronica MURRIETA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 183–184

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anna Veronica MURRIETA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10465.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
Anea Iulia Pop, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Firm Address: SUITE 4800 Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, 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
Anna Veronica Murrieta appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Murrieta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider her individual circumstances and arguments for a lower sentence. The record indicates that the district court considered Murrieta's arguments in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Murrieta also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), her sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993-94.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.