United States of America v. Jaime Ivan Mendez-Maciel

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAIME IVAN MENDEZ-MACIEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50208
D.C. No. 3:17-cr-02726-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Ivan Mendez-Maciel appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
* 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).
FILED
SEP 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-50208
we affirm.
Mendez-Maciel challenges the district court’s denial of his request for a
second continuance of the sentencing hearing. Contrary to Mendez-Maciel’s
contention, remand is required only where prejudice resulting from the denial of
the continuance is established. See United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524, 543 (9th
Cir. 2011). Because Mendez-Maciel has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced
by the denial of a second continuance, he has not shown that the district court
abused its discretion or violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
See id. The record reflects that the district court allowed Mendez-Maciel to
present his arguments at the sentencing hearing and it considered the relevant 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Mendez-Maciel has not identified what
information he would have provided the court that might have convinced it to
impose a lower sentence had he been granted a second continuance. Finally, the
significantly below-Guidelines sentence, which comported with the terms of
Mendez-Maciel’s plea agreement, is substantively reasonable in light of the section
3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --