Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damaso Rene OBESO-FELIX, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-03
Citations: 435 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: No. 10-30252
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Damaso Rene OBESO-FELIX, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Damaso Rene OBESO-FELIX, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-30252.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 3, 2011.
James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendantr-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Damaso Rene Obeso-Felix appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Obeso-Felix contends that the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to comply with the statutory purposes of sentencing. The sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.