United States v. Selena Perez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Selena PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Stephen R. Reinhardt (author), Stephen S. Trott, Andrew D. Hurwitz
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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50036 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02874-BAS v. MEMORANDUM *
SELENA PEREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Selena Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 100-month sentence imposed following her 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.
Perez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address * 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). her mitigating arguments and by failing to appreciate its discretion to vary from the Guidelines on policy grounds under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007). Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), we conclude that the district court did not err. The record reflects that the district court considered Perez’s mitigating arguments and departed downward in response. Moreover, the record shows that the district court understood its discretion to vary from the Guidelines on policy grounds but chose not to exercise that discretion. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-50036