United States v. David Richard Mendez

26 F.3d 134 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Richard MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50614. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 11, 1994. * Decided May 19, 1994. Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 David Richard Mendez appeals his 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 (a). Mendez contends the district court failed to state adequately its reasons for sentencing him at the high end of the applicable Guidelines range. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirm. 3 We review de novo whether a district court adequately set forth its reasons for imposing a particular sentence within the guideline range. United States v. Wilson, 7 F.3d 828, 839 (9th Cir.1993). Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553 (c) requires the district court to state reasons for imposing a sentence "at a…