FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10182
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00134-JAM-8
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE MARIO MEDRANO, AKA Molito,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 12, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Mario Medrano appeals the 262-month sentence imposed following his
conviction pursuant to a guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute over 500 grams of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and using a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
communication facility to facilitate a drug trafficking offense in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 843(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Medrano possessed a
firearm during the commission of the offense, for purposes of increasing his
offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1). See United
States v. Ortiz, 362 F.3d 1274, 1278 (9th Cir. 2004). Evidence that Medrano was
in charge of the transportation of these drugs supported a finding that Medrano
knew of the loaded firearm located in the same hidden compartment as some of the
methamphetamine he admitted to transporting.
The district court did not err in imposing a within-Guidelines sentence.
Although the district court would have been permitted to depart downward from
the Guidelines range if it agreed with Medrano’s contention that the
methamphetamine trafficking Guidelines are overly punitive, no authority required
it to depart downward. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“[D]istrict courts are not obligated to vary from the . . . Guidelines on
policy grounds if they do not have, in fact, a policy disagreement with them.”).
And, as the defendant did not make this “overly punitive” argument at sentencing,
the district court had no obligation expressly to consider the policy considerations
underlying the Guidelines. See id. (stating a district court may not ignore its
2 14-10182
discretion to vary from the Guidelines where it is presented with an argument that
it should exercise that discretion). In light of Medrano’s history and characteristics
and the particular facts of the offense, the sentence was substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-10182