Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR, a.k.a. Guayabo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-17
Citations: 693 F. App'x 703
Docket Number: No. 16-30104
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR, a.k.a. Guayabo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 703–704

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR, a.k.a. Guayabo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30104
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 17, 2017
Kathleen Louise Bickers, I, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAD, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Per C. Olson, Hoevet Olson Howes, PC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, 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
Samuel Navarrette-Aguilar appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 168-month concurrent sentences imposed upon remand for resentencing following his convictions for heroin trafficking conspiracy, distribution of heroin, and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Navarrette-Aguilar contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Navarrette-Aguilar's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Navar-rette-Aguilar's criminal history and the nature of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (sentencing disparities are not unwarranted where defendant and his co-conspirators are not similarly situated).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.