UNITED STATES v. TUCKER (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Gloria L. Tucker appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 82-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and (b)(1)(B)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Tucker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, particularly the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and by limiting the time for her attorney’s presentation at the sentencing hearing. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. Contrary to Tucker’s suggestion, the district court was not required to mention each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to show that it had considered them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The record reflects that the district court adequately considered Tucker’s arguments and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See id. at 991. Moreover, Tucker has not shown a reasonable probability that she would have received a different sentence had her attorney been given more time to present at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.