Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Arturo CISNEROS-RAMIREZ, aka Primo and Arturo Cisneros-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-21
Citations: 329 F. App'x 735
Docket Number: No. 08-50223
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Arturo CISNEROS-RAMIREZ, aka Primo and Arturo Cisneros-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 735–735

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Arturo CISNEROS-RAMIREZ, aka Primo and Arturo Cisneros-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50223.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 21, 2009.
Scott Michael Lesowitz, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Debra Ann Diiorio, Law Office of Debra Diiorio, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Arturo Cisneros-Ramirez appeals from the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine and for laundering monetary instruments, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cisneros-Ramirez contends his sentence is unreasonable because the district court improperly weighed some of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court did not procedurally err and the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 990-93 (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.