USA V. SONYA TUPOU, No. 16-10340 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 29 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-10340 D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00634-LEK v. MEMORANDUM* SONYA LUELLA LEINANI TUPOU, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Sonya Luella Leinani Tupou appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams of more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846; * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). attempt to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams of more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), (d)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. For the first time on appeal, Tupou contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the sentence and by failing to consider her mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the district court considered Tupou’s arguments and thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Tupou next contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Tupou’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 16-10340
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
