Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin LOPEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-17
Citations: 332 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 08-50341
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin LOPEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin LOPEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50341.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
Filed Aug. 17, 2009.
Jill L. Burkhardt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Owen Lanahan, Law Office of John Lanahan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Benjamin Lopez-Lopez appeals from the 235-month sentence imposed following modification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain why it denied his request for a variance below the modified Guidelines range. We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm because Lopez-Lopez has not established that any error affected his substantial rights, see id. at 761-62.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.