Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Piedad PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-09
Citations: 437 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 10-10179
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Piedad PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Piedad PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10179.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 9, 2011.
Elizabeth Adair Strange, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roger H. Sigal, Esquire, Law Office of Roger H. Sigal, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Piedad Peralta appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Peralta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and address her arguments in support of a variance and to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence. The record reflects that the district court considered all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Peralta's mitigating arguments, adequately explained the reasons for the sentence, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Further, the record reflects that the low-end 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.