USA V. IGNACIO VALDIVIA-MARQUEZ, No. 14-50091 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 23 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50091 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00651-PA v. MEMORANDUM* IGNACIO VALDIVIA-MARQUEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Ignacio Valdivia-Marquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana on board a vessel subject to United States jurisdiction and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 960(b)(2)(G); and 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Valdivia-Marquez contends that the district court procedurally erred by focusing on general deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and failing to consider and explain its rejection of his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors and Valdivia-Marquez’s mitigating arguments, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Valdivia-Marquez next contends that the alleged procedural errors resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Valdivia-Marquez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 14-50091
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.
