United States v. Isaih Veytia
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Isaih VEYTIA, Defendant—Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Janis L. Sammartino (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Richard R. Clifton
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50027 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03145-JLS v. MEMORANDUM * ISAIH VEYTIA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Isaih Veytia appeals from the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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). Veytia contends that, when imposing a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum, the district court erred by determining that the government’s substantial assistance motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) permitted it to consider only the factors set forth in section 3553(e) and not the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Veytia contends that this determination conflicts with Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), and leads to a sentence that violates the parsimony principle. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50027