United States v. Ignacio Valdivia-Marquez

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50091
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00651-PA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
IGNACIO VALDIVIA-MARQUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ignacio Valdivia-Marquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana on board a vessel subject to United
States jurisdiction and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 960(b)(2)(G); and 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valdivia-Marquez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
focusing on general deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors and failing to consider and explain its rejection of his mitigating arguments.
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 properly
considered the section 3553(a) factors and Valdivia-Marquez’s mitigating
arguments, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Valdivia-Marquez next contends that the alleged procedural errors resulted
in a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Valdivia-Marquez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines 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; 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.”).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50091