United States v. Vega

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 11, 2024
• Docket: 23-1476
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 11 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-1476 D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:20-cr-00120-RSM-6 v. MEMORANDUM* SONIA L. MEZQUITA VEGA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 9, 2024** Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Sonia L. Mezquita Vega appeals her 44-month sentence for her involvement

in a scheme to launder money obtained from the illicit sale of drugs. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

* 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). Mezquita Vega raises a procedural objection to her sentence, arguing that

the district court “failed to adequately explain the reasons for its sentencing

decision” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 because it did not “mention[] her sentence in

comparison to the other defendants who had been sentenced prior to her.” When a

defendant does not object to a district court’s sentencing explanation, as is the case

here, this court reviews for plain error. United States v. Perez, 962 F.3d 420, 454

(9th Cir. 2020). “Plain error is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects

substantial rights.” See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir.

2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Mezquita Vega cannot satisfy the first prong of plain error review, that the

district court erred. She does not identify any authority holding that, when

imposing a sentence, a district court judge must specifically articulate reasons for

why a defendant’s sentence is higher than the sentences of her co-defendants. At

sentencing, the district court was required to “state in open court the reasons for its

imposition of the particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). Here, the district court

explained that it was “mindful” that it had “already sentenced other individuals in

this case” and that it “must take that into account in terms of fashioning a sentence

that is proportionate to [Mezquita Vega’s] involvement.” The district court also

explained that it had reviewed both parties’ sentencing memorandums and the

presentence investigation report, and that it “looked carefully at all the 3553(a)

2 23-1476 factors.” Considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court found that Mezquita

Vega committed a “serious offense” because “the only reason the drug business

survives is because of the money that comes with it.” It acknowledged that

“Mezquita Vega and the other couriers involved in this case were not getting the

sums of money that these spreadsheets reflect. They were getting a very small

amount in return for their involvement.” Finally, it credited Mezquita Vega for

“walking away from all of this at a period of time when other people had not.” The

district court’s explanation sufficiently “communicate[d] that the parties’

arguments have been heard, and that a reasoned decision has been made,” as

required by § 3553. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc).

Mezquita Vega also argues that, in calculating her guidelines range, “the

district court did not make a reasonable estimate of the total of the laundered

funds.” We review a district court’s factual determination of the amount of loss for

clear error. United States v. Walter-Eze, 869 F.3d 891, 912 (9th Cir. 2017).

Mezquita Vega presented no evidence at sentencing to rebut the government’s

evidence that she was directly or indirectly responsible for over $2.4 million in

laundered funds. Given the lack of controverting evidence, the district court did not

clearly err because it made a “reasonable estimate of the loss based on the

available information” presented at sentencing. See id. (quoting United States v.

3 23-1476 Zolp, 479 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2007)).

AFFIRM.

4 23-1476