Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James RIVERA, a.k.a. All Mighty Wind Co., a.k.a. Marion Villarreal Anguiano, a.k.a., Apostles Inc., a.k.a. I Really Wish I Had That, a.k.a. James Quinn, a.k.a. Armando James River, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-22
Citations: 542 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 12-50006
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James RIVERA, a.k.a. All Mighty Wind Co., a.k.a. Marion Villarreal Anguiano, a.k.a., Apostles Inc., a.k.a. I Really Wish I Had That, a.k.a. James Quinn, a.k.a. Armando James River, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 697–698

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James RIVERA, a.k.a. All Mighty Wind Co., a.k.a. Marion Villarreal Anguiano, a.k.a., Apostles Inc., a.k.a. I Really Wish I Had That, a.k.a. James Quinn, a.k.a. Armando James River, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50006.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
Michael Anthony Brown, Assistant U.S., Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Joshua Robbins, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerald Lee Brainin, Esquire, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, 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
James Rivera appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-year sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rivera contends that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence imposed in light of his nonfrivo-lous arguments, and by failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court explained the sentence sufficiently to permit appellate review; adequately considered Rivera's arguments, including his policy arguments; adequately considered the 3553(a) sentencing factors; and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Rivera next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance to account for Rivera's characteristics, history of fraud offenses, and the circumstances of the offense. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.2009). Rivera's sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) factors. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.