United States v. Tapia

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50248 · 2010-04-16 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandra TAPIA, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Pamela A. Rymer (author), Richard A. Paez, Mary M. McKeown

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2010

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. 09-50248 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-CR-00249-BTM v. MEMORANDUM * ALEJANDRA TAPIA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2010 ** Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Alejandra Tapia appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following her jury-trial conviction for bringing in an illegal alien for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), bringing in an illegal alien without presentation, in * 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). violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii), aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and bail jumping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Tapia contends that the district court committed plain error by basing her 51- month sentence on speculation about whether and when Tapia could enter and complete the Bureau of Prison’s 500-hour drug abuse treatment program. No reversible error was committed. See United States v. Duran, 37 F.3d 557, 561 (9th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Waknine, 543 F. 3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 09-50248