Court Opinion

ID: 3133098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-20 21:01:11.968009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:27.941477
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     OCT 20 2015
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 14-10077

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00220-LJO

    v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
 OSWALDO IBARRA-MEZA, a.k.a.
 Osvaldo Ibarra-Meza,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted October 14, 2015**

Before:        SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

         Oswaldo Ibarra-Meza appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 121-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine

         *
             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).
with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). We

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

      Ibarra-Meza contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

consider and address his request for a downward variance to the 120-month

mandatory minimum sentence. 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 Ibarra-Meza’s argument and

granted a downward variance based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Contrary

to Ibarra-Meza’s contention, the court was not required to explicitly address each

of his arguments. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                      14-10077