United States of America v. Ana Martha Armenta- Penuelas

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ANA MARTHA ARMENTA-
PENUELAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10271
D.C. No. 4:09-cr-01724-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ana Martha Armenta-Penuelas appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed
following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii), and
FILED
OCT 4 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

1100--1100227711 2
importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(H). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Armenta-Penuelas contends that the district court erred by giving her a
minor role reduction rather than a minimal role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
In light of the district court’s finding that Armenta-Penuelas knew she was
carrying drugs and was prepared to accept money in return, the district court did
not clearly err. See United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1436-37 (9th Cir. 1994).
Armenta-Penuelas also contends that, despite granting a downward variance,
the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by failing specifically to address her arguments
for a variance. The district court “need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to
show that it has considered them.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc). The record reflects that the court considered the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, and Armenta-Penuelas’s arguments.
Armenta-Penuelas lastly contends that her sentence is substantively
unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --