Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Carranza GILES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-07
Citations: 544 F. App'x 726
Docket Number: No. 12-50607
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Carranza GILES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 544
Pages: 726–726

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Carranza GILES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50607.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 12, 2013.
Filed Nov. 7, 2013.
Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Timothy Stockwell, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Paul Balazs, Law Offices of John P. Balazs, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, 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
Jose Carranza Giles appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine and methamphetamine, in •violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952, 960, and 963. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 46-month sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including not only Giles's minimal criminal history and any threats he experienced, but also the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense and promote respect for the law. See id. at 51,128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.