USA V. GLORIA TUCKER, No. 17-30234 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-30234 D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00126-SAB v. MEMORANDUM* GLORIA L. TUCKER, a.k.a. Heather Bahr, a.k.a. Gloria L. Dillon, a.k.a. Gloria Lorraine Dillon, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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). 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. 2 17-30234
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.
