Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oswaldo IBARRA-MEZA, a.k.a. Osvaldo Ibarra-Meza, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-20
Citations: 620 F. App'x 600
Docket Number: No. 14-10077
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oswaldo IBARRA-MEZA, a.k.a. Osvaldo Ibarra-Meza, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 620
Pages: 600–600

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oswaldo IBARRA-MEZA, a.k.a. Osvaldo Ibarra-Meza, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
Filed Oct. 20, 2015.
Kathleen Anne Servatius, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Oswaldo Ibarra-Meza, pro se.
Carolyn M. Wiggin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, 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
Oswaldo Ibarra-Meza appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 121-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ibarra-Meza contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and address his request for a downward variance to the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence. 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 Ibarra-Meza's argument and granted a downward variance based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Contrary to Ibarra-Meza's contention, the court was not required to explicitly address each of his arguments. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.