United States v. Nathan Trujillo ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30155
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00117-SPW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NATHAN THOMAS TRUJILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Nathan Thomas Trujillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 248-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and
*
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).
aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Trujillo contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it
fails to account for the mitigating factors of his case and his policy arguments that
the methamphetamine Guidelines are empirically unsound. The district court did
not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the
seriousness of the offense, Trujillo’s criminal history, and the need to protect the
public. 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, contrary to
Trujillo’s contentions, the record reflects that the district court considered
Trujillo’s arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence, including its
determination that a departure from the Guidelines on policy grounds pursuant to
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), was unwarranted. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-30155