
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Apolonia RAMIREZ, a.k.a. Reina, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50316.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 22, 2013.
    Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Kevin M. Lally, Esquire, Nili T. Moghaddam, Cameron Schroeder, Kerry Creque O’Neill, Assistants U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jennifer Lynn Coon, Law Office of Jennifer L. Coon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Apolonia Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(l)(B)(iii), 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramirez contends that the district court gave insufficient weight to her post-offense rehabilitation and thereby imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ramirez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court was aware of Ramirez’s post-offense rehabilitation but found that the Guidelines adequately captured her conduct. Ramirez’s sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     