Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Magdalena ROCHA, a.k.a. Maria Lopez, a.k.a. Magdalena Maria Rocha, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-23
Citations: 623 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 14-50507
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Magdalena ROCHA, a.k.a. Maria Lopez, a.k.a. Magdalena Maria Rocha, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Magdalena ROCHA, a.k.a. Maria Lopez, a.k.a. Magdalena Maria Rocha, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50507.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Stephen Todd Merrill, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jennifer Lynn Coon, Law Office of Jennifer L. Coon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
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
Maria Magdalena Rocha appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for mad fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rocha contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the mitigating factors and apply the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valenciar-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Rocha's mitigating arguments and the applicable section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Rocha next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court improperly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) ("The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.