FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 4 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10271
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:09-cr-01724-CKJ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ANA MARTHA ARMENTA-
PENUELAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ana Martha Armenta-Penuelas appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed
following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii), 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 methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(H). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Armenta-Penuelas contends that the district court erred by giving her a
minor role reduction rather than a minimal role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
In light of the district court’s finding that Armenta-Penuelas knew she was
carrying drugs and was prepared to accept money in return, the district court did
not clearly err. See United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1436-37 (9th Cir. 1994).
Armenta-Penuelas also contends that, despite granting a downward variance,
the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by failing specifically to address her arguments
for a variance. The district court “need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to
show that it has considered them.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc). The record reflects that the court considered the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, and Armenta-Penuelas’s arguments.
Armenta-Penuelas lastly contends that her sentence is substantively
unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 1 0 -1 0 2 7 1