T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. EDUA RDO ROBER TO BI TI A LOPEZ , AK A E d u a r d o R o b e r t o B i t i a , AK A M anuel C orado L op ez , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 50028 D . C . N o. 2: 11 -c r- 00 33 3-A B C -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A udr e y B . C ol l i ns , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E d u a r d o L o p e z ap p e a ls th e 7 3 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e d f o llo w in g h is g u ilty p le ato b e in g ad e p o r te d a lie n f o u n d in th e U n ite d S ta te s in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 

# FI LED NO V 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 50028 2 1326. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r18 U . S . C . § 3742( a ) a nd 28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd w e a f f i rm. B ec ause L op ez fa i l ed t o o bj ec tt o the di stri ctcourt ’ s a l l eged procedural errors atse nt enci ng , w e r evi ew for pl ai n err or. U ni te d State s v . Sy lv e s te rN orm an Kno w s His G un , II

I, 4 3 8 F .3 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). C o n trar y to L o p ez ’s a s s e r t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d nottr e a tthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a s e s t abl i s hi ng a pres um pt i ve se nt ence , bu tra ther, prop er l y tre at ed the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a s a d v is o ry , a n d p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f a c to r s . See G al l

v. U ni ted Stat es , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 50 n. 6 (20 07 ). W e r e vi e w the s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s of as e nt e nc e f

orabus e of d is c r e tio n . U

n i ted S ta tes v. A u tery , 555 F . 3d 864, 871 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . W he n a di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y appl i e s the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , “ ‘ i ti s pr obabl e tha tthe se nt ence i s r ea sonabl e. ’ ” U n ite d S ta te s v . C a r ty , 520 F . 3d 984, 994 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot i ng R i ta v. U ni ted Stat es , 551 U . S . 338, 551 ( 2007) ) . H e r e , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y app l i ed the G ui del i nes a nd i m po se d a se nt ence atthe l ow er end o f the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange based on a rea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of the § 35 53 (a ) f ac t ors. T he di stri ctcourtal so ac t ed w i thi n i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng L op ez a d o w n w ard d ep artu re b ased o n h i s h eal th p ro b l em s. See e . g. U ni ted Stat es v.12- 50028 3 T ad eo , 22 2 F . 3d 62 3, 62 7 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). W e c on cl ud e thatthe se nt ence i m po se d by the di stri ctcourtw as subst ant i vel y r ea sonabl e. A FFI R M ED .