United States of America v. Selena Perez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SELENA PEREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50036
D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02874-BAS
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50036
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 of 2 --