Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Alex JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-18
Citations: 648 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 15-30041
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Alex JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before; FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 688–688

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Alex JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30041.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2016.
Filed April 18, 2016.
Teal Luthy Miller, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Allen M. Ressler, Ressler & Tesh PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before; FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, 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
John Alex Jefferson appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute to controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jefferson contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to (1) resolve an alleged factual dispute regarding his history of domestic violence, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B); (2) explain adequately its reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence; and (3) consider his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir.2013), and find none. The record reflects that Jefferson failed to raise any specific factual objections to the presentence report; accordingly, the district court's obligations under Rule 32(i)(3)(B) were not triggered. See United States v. Petri, 731 F.3d 833, 841-42 (9th Cir.2013). Moreover, the district court considered Jefferson's mitigating arguments and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Jefferson also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his personal characteristics and the disparity between his sentence and that of his wife. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 46-month, above-Guidelines sentence in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Jefferson's extensive criminal history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.