NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-30234

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00126-SAB v.

MEMORANDUM* GLORIA L. TUCKER, a.k.a. Heather Bahr, a.k.a. Gloria L. Dillon, a.k.a. Gloria Lorraine Dillon,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Gloria L. Tucker appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 82-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of actual methamphetamine, in violation

*

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). of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and (b)(1)(B)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Tucker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, particularly the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and by limiting the time for her attorney’s presentation at the sentencing hearing. 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. Contrary to Tucker’s suggestion, the district court was not required to mention each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to show that it had considered them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The record reflects that the district court adequately considered Tucker’s arguments and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See id. at 991. Moreover, Tucker has not shown a reasonable probability that she would have received a different sentence had her attorney been given more time to present at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-30234