Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-31
Citations: 700 F. App'x 703
Docket Number: No. 16-50442
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 703–703

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50442
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 31, 2017
Benjamin Holley, Stacey H. Sullivan, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Michael Marks, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Eric Mendoza appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 80-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mendoza contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to appreciate or acknowledge its discretion to vary from the career offender guideline based on a policy disagreement under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there was none.
The record reflects that the district court considered the parties' arguments, noted its discretion to vary from the Guidelines, and imposed a substantially below-Guidelines sentence based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Under such circumstances, the district court did not procedurally err by failing to appreciate its discretion to vary from the Guidelines under Kimbrough, nor did it fail to explain adequately its exercise of discretion. See United States v. Ayala-Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 752-53 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.