Case ID: f-appx_477/html/0430-02.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. Salvador RANGEL-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30275.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 20, 2011.
    Jennifer Jane Martin, Kelly A. Zusman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bronson James, JDL Attorneys LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Salvador Rangel-Cruz appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rangel-Cruz contends that the district court erred procedurally by declining to consider the disparity between his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and the state court sentences received by his co-conspirators. The record belies the contention that the court did not consider the disparity. That the court chose not to give weight to the disparity was not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Ringgold, 571 F.3d 948, 951 (9th Cir.2009) (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) “does not require district courts to consider sentence disparities between defendants found guilty of similar conduct in state and federal courts”).

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