United States v. Gloria Tucker ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-30234
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00126-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GLORIA L. TUCKER, a.k.a. Heather Bahr,
a.k.a. Gloria L. Dillon, a.k.a. Gloria Lorraine
Dillon,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Gloria L. Tucker appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 82-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession
with intent to distribute and distribution of actual methamphetamine, in violation
*
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).
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and (b)(1)(B)(viii). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Tucker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, particularly the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities, and by limiting the time for her attorney’s
presentation at the sentencing hearing. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude
that there is none. Contrary to Tucker’s suggestion, the district court was not
required to mention each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to show that it had
considered them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc). The record reflects that the district court adequately considered Tucker’s
arguments and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See id. at 991. Moreover,
Tucker has not shown a reasonable probability that she would have received a
different sentence had her attorney been given more time to present at the
sentencing hearing. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.
2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-30234