Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alma MACHADO-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-26
Citations: 401 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 09-10423
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alma MACHADO-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 202–202

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alma MACHADO-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10423.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 18, 2010.
Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendanfi-Appellant.
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, 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
Alma Machado-Medina appeals the district court's sentence of 24 months following her guilty plea to charges of importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute. Medina contends that the government prosecuted her vindictively for exercising her right to appeal by failing to move for a one-level sentencing reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b). We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm.
We review for clear error a district court's decision not to grant an additional reduction to a defendant's sentence. United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir.2009). We review de novo a district court's interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines. Id.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
At sentencing, the government may, in its discretion, refuse to request a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b) based on a defendant's refusal to waive his or her appeal rights. See Johnson, 581 F.3d at 1002; United States v. Medina-Beltran, 542 F.3d 729, 731-32 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.