Opinion
No. 07-10054.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed May 28, 2008.
Jonathan Baghdassarian Granoff, Esq., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini, U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter Hormel, Esq., Law Office of Peter Hormel, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, John M. Roll, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-04030-1-JMR.
Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Javier Moya-Alegria appeals from the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D).
Moya-Alegria contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence. This contention is belied by the record. See Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
Moya-Alegria also contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by treating the Guidelines as mandatory and by not rendering its decision in a manner that explicitly analyzed the other factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, "[t]he district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them. We assume that district judges know the law and understand their obligation to consider all of the § 3553(a) factors, not just the Guidelines." United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).