United States of America v. Vanessa Elizabeth Palacios- Cortez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VANESSA ELIZABETH PALACIOS-
CORTEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10039
D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01386-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 10, 2015***
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Vanessa Elizabeth Palacios-Cortez appeals from the district court’s
judgment and challenges the 65-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea
FILED
MAR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Marvin E. Aspen, Senior United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Palacios-Cortez’s
request for oral argument is denied.

-- 1 of 3 --

conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii); and importation of methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1), (b)(1)(H). We have jurisdiction
under 21 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Palacios-Cortez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and by failing to explain
adequately the sentence imposed, including its reasons for rejecting her request for
a downward variance. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court
considered the statutory sentencing factors and Palacios-Cortez’s arguments, and
sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-
93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Palacios-Cortez also contends that her sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of her personal circumstances and because the applicable
Guidelines are arbitrarily harsh. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing Palacios-Cortez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
the seriousness of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Palacios-Cortez’s motion to remand for resentencing based on Amendment
782 to the Guidelines is denied. Any motion respecting the applicability of
14-10039 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Amendment 782 should be brought in the sentencing court in the first instance.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.
14-10039 3

-- 3 of 3 --