Court Opinion

ID: 2760467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-12-12 22:00:50.652379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:21.593471
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 12 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-10040

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00465-RCC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JESUS JIMENEZ-LEON, a.k.a. Jesus
Jimenez-Garcia,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 9, 2014**

Before:        WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       Jesus Jimenez-Leon appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the below-Guidelines sentence of 39 months and three days imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 846,

possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Jimenez-Leon contends that the district court erred by failing to consider and

explain why it rejected his arguments for a larger downward variance under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-

Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects

that the district court considered Jimenez-Leon’s mitigating arguments and

explained the sentence adequately. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-

93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                      14-10040