UNITED STATES v. MENDEZ MACIEL (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Ivan Mendez-Maciel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mendez-Maciel challenges the district court’s denial of his request for a second continuance of the sentencing hearing. Contrary to Mendez-Maciel’s contention, remand is required only where prejudice resulting from the denial of the continuance is established. See United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524, 543 (9th Cir. 2011). Because Mendez-Maciel has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the denial of a second continuance, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion or violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See id. The record reflects that the district court allowed Mendez-Maciel to present his arguments at the sentencing hearing and it considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Mendez-Maciel has not identified what information he would have provided the court that might have convinced it to impose a lower sentence had he been granted a second continuance. Finally, the significantly below-Guidelines sentence, which comported with the terms of Mendez-Maciel’s plea agreement, is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.