Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efrain GUZMAN-CASTRO, a.k.a. Efrain Guzman Castro, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-17
Citations: 702 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 17-30030
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efrain GUZMAN-CASTRO, a.k.a. Efrain Guzman Castro, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 702
Pages: 638–638

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efrain GUZMAN-CASTRO, a.k.a. Efrain Guzman Castro, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30030
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 17, 2017 .
Bryce Bland Ellsworth, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin Thomas Malo-ney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
Craig H. Durham, Ferguson Durham, PLLC, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Efrain Guzman-Castro appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Guzman-Castro contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating circumstances in this case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Guzman-Castro's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The mid-range sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.