Court Opinion

ID: 3157289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-11-23 22:01:02.63489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:38.865115
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              NOV 23 2015

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-50091

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00651-PA

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
IGNACIO VALDIVIA-MARQUEZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                     Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted November 18, 2015**

Before:        TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Ignacio Valdivia-Marquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

possession with intent to distribute marijuana on board a vessel subject to United

States jurisdiction and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C.

          *
             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).
§ 960(b)(2)(G); and 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

       Valdivia-Marquez contends that the district court procedurally erred by

focusing on general deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors and failing to consider and explain its rejection of his mitigating arguments.

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 court properly

considered the section 3553(a) factors and Valdivia-Marquez’s mitigating

arguments, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

       Valdivia-Marquez next contends that the alleged procedural errors resulted

in a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing Valdivia-Marquez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively

reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; 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.”).

       All pending motions are denied.

       AFFIRMED.

                                             2                                   14-50091