United States v. Oscar Barreras-Felix

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10369

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

4:19-cr-02199-JGZ-BGM-1

v.

OSCAR BARRERAS-FELIX, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Barreras-Felix appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 54-month term of confinement and a standard condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction to drug offenses involving methamphetamine. 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).

we affirm.

Barreras-Felix contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence. 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. The record reflects that the district court considered Barrera-Felix’s arguments and fully explained its reasons for imposing a sentence below the applicable Guidelines range. See United States v. Perez- Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court need not specifically address each of the defendant’s arguments to show that it has considered them).

Barreras-Felix also argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by giving excessive weight to aggravating sentencing factors and insufficient weight to his mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 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.”).

Finally, as Barreras-Felix concedes, his challenge to Standard Condition 12 of his term of supervised release is foreclosed by our recent decision in United

2 20-10369

States v. Gibson, 998 F.3d 415, 422-23 (9th Cir. 2021).

AFFIRMED.

3 20-10369