United States of America v. Jorge Armando Gonzalez

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE ARMANDO GONZALEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10373
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00383-WBS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Armando Gonzalez appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
FILED
SEP 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10373 2
and 846, and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Gonzalez contends that the district court procedurally erred by presuming
the Sentencing Guidelines range was reasonable, by requiring compelling or
unusual circumstances for a variance, by basing its sentence on clearly erroneous
facts, and by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The
record reflects that the court treated the Guidelines as advisory and specifically
addressed each of Gonzalez’s mitigating arguments, but found the circumstances
insufficient to support a downward variance. Further, Gonzalez fails to show that
the court’s sentence was based on clearly erroneous facts, or that the court failed
adequately to consider the section 3553(a) factors. The district court did not
procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc).
Gonzalez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light
of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --