United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Maria Luisa Munguia-silva, Defendant-appellant, 952 F.2d 1401 (10th Cir. 1992)

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant-appellant Maria Luisa Munguia-Silva appeals from the 21-month sentence entered by the district court after the court entered judgment for appellant's violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion in arriving at the 21-month sentence.

On August 7, 1990, appellant entered a voluntary plea of guilty to importation of less than fifty kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). Pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1, the district court correctly determined that the offense warranted a base offense level of 18. The court gave appellant credit for having accepted responsibility and reduced the offense level to 16. The district court then entered a sentence of twenty-one months, the time period that fell at the bottom of the Guideline range. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing this sentence.

In United States v. Garcia, 919 F.2d 1478 (10th Cir. 1990), we held that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), a defendant may not appeal a district court's decision to impose a sentence at a particular point within the range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. Because the district court sentence in this case falls within the Guideline range, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The mandate shall issue forthwith.