Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-29
Citations: 637 F. App'x 423
Docket Number: No. 13-10443
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 423–423

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10443.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
Heiko P. Coppola, Assistant U.S., Michael Damien McCoy, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy Edward Warriner Law Office • of Timothy E. Warriner Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, 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
Sergio Mendez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 262-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mendez argues that the district court procedurally erred by misunderstanding its sentencing discretion and presuming a Guideline sentence was reasonable. We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008), and find none. Even if the district court's ambiguous statement at the sentencing hearing regarding the other branches of government constitutes error, Mendez has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. See id. In light of the district court's discussion of the aggravating and mitigating factors in Mendez's case, he has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the alleged error. See id. at 762,
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.