gno.law

United States v. Felipe Chavoya

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50196 · 2015-03-18 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe De Jesus CHAVOYA, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Joseph J. Farris (author), Richard A. Paez, Kim M. Wardlaw

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50196 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-04537-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* FELIPE DE JESUS CHAVOYA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Felipe de Jesus Chavoya appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 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). Chavoya contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his history and circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Chavoya’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 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.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50196

Cites, in this corpus