Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus JIMENEZ-LEON, a.k.a. Jesus Jimenez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-12
Citations: 587 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 14-10040
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus JIMENEZ-LEON, a.k.a. Jesus Jimenez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 587
Pages: 438–438

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus JIMENEZ-LEON, a.k.a. Jesus Jimenez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10040.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
Filed Dec. 12, 2014.
Ryan P. Dejoe, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew J. McGuire, Patagonia, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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
Jesus Jimenez-Leon appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the below-Guidelines sentence of 39 months and three days imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 846, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jimenez-Leon contends that the district court erred by failing to consider and explain why it rejected his arguments for a larger downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Jimenez-Leon's mitigating arguments and explained the sentence adequately. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.