Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0583-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David ANGULO-VISCARRA, a.k.a. David Angulo-Vizcarra, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10018.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 27, 2014.
    Shelley Kay-Glenn Clemens, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew J. McGuire, Patagonia, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Angulo-Viscarra appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 40-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted exportation of goods from the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a) and 10 U.S.C. § 2278(b)(2) and (c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Angulo-Viscarra contends that the district court failed to consider his argument regarding unwarranted sentencing disparities and did not sufficiently explain the reasons for rejecting that argument. Because Angulo-Viscarra did not object on these grounds below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008). Angulo-Vis-carra has not shown plain error affecting his substantial rights. See id.; United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir.2009) (recognizing that co-defendants are not similarly situated and therefore not subjected to unwarranted sentencing disparities where they are convicted of different offenses).

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