Summary
rejecting Defendant's argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable
Summary of this case from United States v. Navarrette-AguilarOpinion
No. 16-30104
07-17-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMUEL NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR, a.k.a. Guayabo, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00373-HZ MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Samuel Navarrette-Aguilar appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 168-month concurrent sentences imposed upon remand for resentencing following his convictions for heroin trafficking conspiracy, distribution of heroin, and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Navarrette-Aguilar contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Navarrette-Aguilar's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Navarrette-Aguilar's criminal history and the nature of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (sentencing disparities are not unwarranted where defendant and his co-conspirators are not similarly situated).
AFFIRMED.