Court Opinion

ID: 9380999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 19:00:46.474629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.963784
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-50019

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00236-RGK-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CHELSEA SHANNON McINTYRE,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Chelsea Shannon McIntyre appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 210-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction

for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
and we affirm.

      McIntyre contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Although she does not dispute that she qualifies as a career offender, she argues

that the district court should not have considered the resulting guideline range

because the career offender guideline is not based on sound policy and her

predicate offenses were relatively minor and remote in time. McIntyre further

contends that her mitigating circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

warranted a 138-month sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence

is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the

circumstances, including McIntyre’s criminal history and decision to abscond prior

to sentencing. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; 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.”). Moreover,

the district court adequately considered her mitigating circumstances and the

§ 3553(a) factors in arriving at this sentence.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-50019