Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0703-02.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. Samuel NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR, a.k.a. Guayabo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30104
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    
      Kathleen Louise Bickers, I, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAD, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Per C. Olson, Hoevet Olson Howes, PC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (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 Navar-rette-Aguilar’s criminal history and the nature of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.