United States v. Jorge Betancourt Mendoza ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-30182
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-06012-EFS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JORGE ARMANDO BETANCOURT
MENDOZA, a.k.a. Jorge Mendoza
Mendoza,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Armando Betancourt Mendoza appeals from the 80-month sentence
imposed upon remand for resentencing following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and possession
*
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).
of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Betancourt Mendoza first contends that the district court erred procedurally
by (i) failing to explain why a downward variance, which had been applied at his
original sentencing hearing, was not appropriate on remand; and (ii) treating the
Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable. 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 adequately explained the sentence and did
not impermissibly presume that the Guidelines range was reasonable, but, instead,
imposed sentence after considering all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
Betancourt Mendoza next contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Betancourt Mendoza’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The 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.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-30182