Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fermin VARGAS-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-02
Citations: 582 F. App'x 517
Docket Number: No. 13-11395
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fermin VARGAS-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fermin VARGAS-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-11395
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 2, 2014.
Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Leigha Amy Simonton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, Joshua Thomas Burgess, I, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Camille M. Knight, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fermin Vargas-Valencia (Vargas) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because his 168-month sentence, which is 81 months higher than a similarly situated co-conspir ator's sentence, results in an unwarranted sentencing disparity.
Vargas has not shown that the challenged difference between his sentence, which was based on accurate drug quantity information, and his co-conspirator's sentence, which was not, is the type of unwarranted sentencing disparity that Congress sought to eliminate under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). See Pepper v. United States, -U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 1248-49,179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011). Vargas fails to rebut the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.