United States of America v. LAURA MARQUEZ CRUZ, AKA Laura Valdez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LAURA MARQUEZ CRUZ, AKA Laura
Valdez,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 22-50122
22-50123
D.C. Nos. 3:19-cr-02284-LAB-1
3:21-cr-02883-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Laura Marquez Cruz appeals from the district
court’s judgments and challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following her
guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952,
960, and the 8-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of probation.
* 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
MAR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-50122 & 22-50123
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Marquez Cruz contends that the aggregate 85-month sentence is
substantively unreasonable because her personal circumstances, health conditions,
and nonviolent criminal history weighed in favor of a lower sentence. The district
court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the applicable 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
her criminal history, need for deterrence, and breach of the court’s trust. See Gall,
552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006); 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 of 2 --