Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio Lara VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-29
Citations: 305 F. App'x 435
Docket Number: No. 07-30419
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ignacio Lara VALENCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 435–435

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ignacio Lara VALENCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-30419.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 29, 2008.
Kathleen Louise Bickers, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert M. Stone, Attorney at Law P.C., Medford, OR, for Defendanf-Appellant.
Ignacio Lara Valencia, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ignacio Lara Valencia appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distributing over 50 grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valencia contends that the district court clearly erred when it imposed a two-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l), for possessing a dangerous weapon, because the government failed to show Valencia had constructive possession over a weapon. Because there is a sufficient connection between Valencia and one of the weapons involved to support the inference that he exercised dominion and control over a weapon, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err. Cf. United States v. Kelso, 942 F.2d 680, 682 (9th Cir.1991).
Valencia also contends that his sentence is greater than necessary in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Given the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Valencia's sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (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.