United States of America v. Jalen Laziz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JALEN L AZIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-30121
D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00118-JLR-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jalen Aziz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-
month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for two counts of
distribution of controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C), and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
* 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
APR 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-30121
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Aziz argues that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing
to address (1) the need for correctional treatment in the most effective manner, (2)
his argument that his proposed sentence would be sufficient to promote respect for
the law and protect the public, and (3) his mitigating circumstances. We need not
resolve the parties’ dispute over the applicable standard of review because, even
reviewing de novo, Aziz’s claim fails. The district court expressly considered—
and rejected—Aziz’s arguments as to why a shorter prison sentence followed by
placement at a transitional youth center would provide sufficient rehabilitation and
meet the other statutory sentencing goals. Moreover, the court took account of
Aziz’s youth, upbringing, and history of drug and mental health issues in electing
to impose a below-Guidelines sentence. The court sufficiently explained the
sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Aziz also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
the district court placed “disproportionate focus on protecting the public through
incapacitation” while giving insufficient weight to the effectiveness of community-
based treatment, the impact that a sentence of imprisonment has on a young
person, and his mitigating circumstances. The court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the below-Guidelines sentence, which is substantively reasonable in light

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-30121
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); 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.

-- 3 of 3 --