Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mercedes Molano OLIVER, a.k.a. Mercedes M. Oliver, a.k.a. Mercedes Sanchez-Molano, a.k.a. Beatriz Eugenia Zavala-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-24
Citations: 623 F. App'x 391
Docket Number: No. 14-10529
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mercedes Molano OLIVER, a.k.a. Mercedes M. Oliver, a.k.a. Mercedes Sanchez-Molano, a.k.a. Beatriz Eugenia Zavala-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 391–392

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mercedes Molano OLIVER, a.k.a. Mercedes M. Oliver, a.k.a. Mercedes Sanchez-Molano, a.k.a. Beatriz Eugenia Zavala-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10529.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 24, 2015.
Ryan Ellersiek, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew J. McGuire, Patagonia, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Mercedes Molano Oliver, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, 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
Mercedes Molano Oliver appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 40-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Oliver argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address her request for a downward variance. 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 granted a downward variance after considering Oliver's arguments and adequately explained the sentence. 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.