United States v. Chelsea McIntyre ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50019
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00236-RGK-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHELSEA SHANNON McINTYRE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Chelsea Shannon McIntyre appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 210-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction
for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
*
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).
and we affirm.
McIntyre contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Although she does not dispute that she qualifies as a career offender, she argues
that the district court should not have considered the resulting guideline range
because the career offender guideline is not based on sound policy and her
predicate offenses were relatively minor and remote in time. McIntyre further
contends that her mitigating circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
warranted a 138-month sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including McIntyre’s criminal history and decision to abscond prior
to sentencing. 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,
the district court adequately considered her mitigating circumstances and the
§ 3553(a) factors in arriving at this sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2 22-50019