UNITED STATES v. MONJARDIN IRIBE (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Raul Guadalupe Monjardin-Iribe appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 175-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, and distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Monjardin-Iribe contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating circumstances, including the short time he was involved in the conspiracy and his lack of criminal history. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the large quantity of drugs Monjardin-Iribe possessed, the substantial role he played in the offense, and his attempt to obstruct the investigation. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Contrary to Monjardin-Iribe’s contention, the court did not “mechanically” apply the Guidelines in fashioning his sentence, but rather engaged in the type of individualized assessment of the sentencing factors required under section 3553(a). See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court sufficiently addressed Monjardin-Iribe’s sentencing disparity argument, did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts in imposing the sentence, and adequately explained the sentence. See id. at 992-93.

We decline to consider issues raised for the first time in Monjardin-Iribe’s reply brief. See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.