FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10141
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00340-JAS-
LAB-1
v.
FEDERICO MARTINEZ ARROYO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 22, 2016**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Frederico Martinez Arroyo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions
for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and
*
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).
importation of cocaine and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Martinez Arroyo contends that the district court procedurally erred at
sentencing by failing to address his argument that he should receive a lower
sentence because of his need for medical care and his age. Because Martinez
Arroyo did not object on these grounds below, we review for plain error. See
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010); United
States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008).
The record indicates that the district court listened to the attorneys’ simple
and straightforward arguments for a variance based on Martinez Arroyo’s age and
health and imposed a substantial downward variance. Martinez Arroyo offers no
evidence or argument that the sentence would have been lower if the court had
more explicitly addressed his age and health arguments. Thus, Martinez Arroyo
has not shown that the district court committed an error that was plain and affected
his substantial rights. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007);
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); Dallman, 533
F.3d at 761-62.
AFFIRMED.
2