FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30142
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00174-JO-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAVIER AVILA-AGUILAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Robert E. Jones, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011**
Portland, Oregon
Before: D.W. NELSON, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Javier Avila-Aguilar appeals his conviction for possession with intent to
distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and the sentence imposed
*
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).
by the district court. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history
of this case, we need not recount it here.
I
Sufficient evidence existed to sustain the jury verdict. In examining a jury
verdict for sufficiency of evidence, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979);
United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We
then determine whether, given the evidence, “any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson,
443 U.S. at 319; Nevils, 598 F.3d at 1163-65.
In this case, evidence presented to the jury tied Avila-Aguilar to the “stash
house” through phone bills, receipts, birth certificates, false identifications, and
personal photographs. Avila-Aguilar left that house, driving the car used in three
previous drug sales, carrying five ounces of cocaine and large amounts of cash, and
met a confidential informant in the spot specified for a drug transaction. When
construed most favorably to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient for a
rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-2-
II
We review a district court’s sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court did not
abuse its discretion.
A district court does not commit procedural error by declining to compare
federal and state sentences. United States v. Ringgold, 571 F.3d 948, 951 (9th Cir.
2009). The record reflects that the district court listened to Avila-Aguilar’s
arguments and did not otherwise procedurally err. Carty, 520 F.3d at 995.
The district court accurately calculated the applicable advisory guideline
range and selected a sentence within that range. The court explained that Avila-
Aguilar was a repeat offender who refused to accept responsibility. The sentence
was not substantively unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
-3-