NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10369
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:19-cr-02199-JGZ-BGM-1
v.
OSCAR BARRERAS-FELIX, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Barreras-Felix appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 54-month term of confinement and a standard condition of
supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction to drug offenses
involving methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
we affirm.
Barreras-Felix contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to address his arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court
considered Barrera-Felix’s arguments and fully explained its reasons for imposing
a sentence below the applicable Guidelines range. See United States v. Perez-
Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court need not specifically
address each of the defendant’s arguments to show that it has considered them).
Barreras-Felix also argues that the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence by giving excessive weight to aggravating sentencing
factors and insufficient weight to his mitigating circumstances. The district court
did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for
the discretion of the district court.”).
Finally, as Barreras-Felix concedes, his challenge to Standard Condition 12
of his term of supervised release is foreclosed by our recent decision in United
2 20-10369
States v. Gibson, 998 F.3d 415, 422-23 (9th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-10369
United States v. Oscar Barreras-Felix
Combined Opinion