United States of America v. Mohammed Siddiquee

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MOHAMMED SIDDIQUEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50332
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01301-JVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed Siddiquee appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted trafficking in counterfeit goods,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50332 2
Siddiquee contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by
failing to consider and properly weigh the relevant factors and circumstances under
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record reflects that the district court considered all of the
statutory sentencing factors and did not procedurally err. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Siddiquee also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence, which was
at the bottom of the Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993;
see also United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding
that the circumstances did not compel a lower sentence because the district court
had properly weighed and considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant
sentencing factors, including the fact that the appellant would likely deported after
serving his sentence).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --