United States v. Mario Benitez

MEMORANDUM

Mario Benitez appeals his 144-month sentence, imposed following his conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance ( 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(ii)) and conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute ( 21 U.S.C. § 846 ). We affirm.

First, Benitez argues that the district court committed procedural error at sentencing when, he contends, it failed to respond to his specific, non-frivolous § 3553(a) arguments for a shorter sentence. Specifically, he argues that the district court did not adequately address his arguments 1) that the minimum sentence of 120 months was sufficient to address sentencing goals, and 2) that he was significantly less culpable than his co-defendants. Although a “judge will normally explain why he has rejected [§ 3553(a)] arguments,” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 339 , 127 S.Ct. 2456 , 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), a “district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as to each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel,” United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 919-20 (9th Cir.2011). An explanation is sufficient when a district court “reviewed…