Case ID: f-appx_563/html/0566-01.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. Gregory Anthony FLORES, a.k.a. Greg Flores, a.k.a. Gregor A. Flores, a.k.a. Gregory Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50353.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 17, 2014.
    Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Ami Sheth, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney Daniel Ackerman, Assistant U.S., Los Angeles, CA, Ann Luotto Wolf, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy Allen Scott, Law Offices of Timothy A. Scott, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory Anthony Flores appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 144-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349; and tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Flores contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his age and poor health, and because U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 lacks proper empirical foundation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Flores’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 Flores’s offense conduct. See id. Moreover, the district court was under no obligation to vary from the Guidelines based on policy considerations. See United States v. Carper, 659 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir.2011).

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