FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 28 2011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. 10-50624
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00384-GHK-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ALEJANDRO MORFIN GARCIA, a.k.a.
Alejandro Garcia Morfin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Morfin Garcia appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine, in
*
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).
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B)(viii). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Morfin Garcia contends that the district court committed procedural error by
failing to consider his mitigation arguments. This contention is belied by the
record, which demonstrates that there was no such error. See United States v.
Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] sentencing judge
does not abuse his discretion when he listens to the defendant’s arguments and then
simply finds the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the
Guidelines range[.]”) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Morfin Garcia also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
He argues that in selecting the sentence, the district court overemphasized his
criminal history and the seriousness of his offense, and failed to account for his
mitigating characteristics. Contrary to Morfin Garcia’s contention, the district
court “did not give [the aggravating] factor[s] impermissible weight or ignore or
downplay the other factors.” United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904,
908 (9th Cir. 2009). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, Morfin Garcia’s middle-of-the-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
2 10-50264
Finally, contrary to Morfin Garcia’s contention, the record reflects that the
district court did not rely on his rehabilitative needs to impose or lengthen his
period of confinement. See Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2392 (2011)
(“A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within
prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 10-50264