Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LONG BAO HO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-11
Citations: 217 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 05-50952
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LONG BAO HO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ABARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LONG BAO HO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50952.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007.
Filed Jan. 11, 2007.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Doug Miller, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas Nishi, Esq., Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ABARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Long Bao Ho appeals from the 70-month sentence and the $10,000 fine imposed following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Ho contends that his sentence is unreasonable because it is substantially longer than the sentences imposed on two of his codefendants. But the record indicates that Ho was more involved in the conspiracy than one of those codefendants, and that the other of those codefendants cooperated with the government in its prosecution of Ho. Therefore we cannot say that the disparity in sentences was unwarranted. See United States v. Shabani, 48 F.3d 401, 404 (9th Cir.1995) (concluding that sentence disparity resulting from cooperation with the government is not unwarranted).
Ho also contends that the fine is unreasonable. But the record indicates that the sentencing judge considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) factors, see United States v. Eureka Labs., Inc., 103 F.3d 908, 913-14 (9th Cir.1996), and so we cannot say that the fine is unreasonable. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.