Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos SANCHEZ, aka Carlos Miguel Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Carlos Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 121-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing the sentence recommended by the government without analyzing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Sanchez also contends that the district court erred by failing to explain why it rejected his request for a 60-month sentence and why it believed a sentence less than 121 months was insufficient. Contrary to Sanchez’s contention, we review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. After acknowledging Sanchez’s mitigating arguments, the district court stated that it had considered all of the relevant section 3553(a) sentencing factors, noted its concern about Sanchez’s criminal history and the nature of the offense, and explained that a 60-month sentence would not be sufficient in light of the severity of the offense and the other sentencing factors. The court was not required to “tick off” each of the section 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and its explanation of the within-Guidelines sentence was sufficient, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
Sanchez next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his acceptance of responsibility and family history, which he argues decrease his likelihood of recidivism. 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). Sanchez’s sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of drugs involved in the offense and Sanchez’s criminal history.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-10033
Decided: April 22, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)