United States v. Oswaldo Zuniga-Sanchez

421 F. App'x 753

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2011
• Docket: 10-30042
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Oswaldo Zuniga-Sanchez appeals from the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Zuniga-Sanchez contends that the district court erred in imposing a two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The district court did not clearly err in finding that the connection between the handgun and the drug conspiracy was not “clearly improbable.” See United States v. Lopez-Sandoval, 146 F.3d 712, 714-16 (9th Cir.1998).

Zuniga-Sanchez also contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the 135-month sentence at the low-end of the Guidelines range was reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The fact that the district court acknowledged that a sentence at the statutory minimum of 120 months would also have been reasonable does not alter this conclusion, as the “parsimony clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) functions not as a constraint on appellate review but rather as a directive to the district court in the first instance. See United States v. Chavez, 611 F.3d 1006, 1010-11 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.