Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Perla Icela Cuevas LUGO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-01
Citations: 249 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 06-30485
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Perla Icela Cuevas LUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Perla Icela Cuevas LUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30485.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
Filed Oct. 1, 2007.
Joseph E. Thaggard, Esq., USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel V. Donovan, Esq., Thompson Potts & Donovan, PC, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Perla Icela Cuevas Lugo appeals from the 210-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with the intent to distribute over 500 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Appellant's contention that the district court improperly considered the Sentencing Guidelines range to be the presumptive sentence is belied by the record.
Appellant contends that her sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not adequately consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court adequately addressed the statutory factors. See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 912-13 (9th Cir.2006). We conclude that appellant's sentence is not unreasonable.
We decline to reach appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2000)
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.