United States of America v. Ignacio Valdivia-Marquez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IGNACIO VALDIVIA-MARQUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50091
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00651-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ignacio Valdivia-Marquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana on board a vessel subject to United
States jurisdiction and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C.
FILED
NOV 23 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 960(b)(2)(G); and 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valdivia-Marquez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
focusing on general deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors and failing to consider and explain its rejection of his mitigating arguments.
We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court properly
considered the section 3553(a) factors and Valdivia-Marquez’s mitigating
arguments, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Valdivia-Marquez next contends that the alleged procedural errors resulted
in a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Valdivia-Marquez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; 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.”).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-50091 2

-- 2 of 2 --