Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 210 F. App'x 715
Docket Number: No. 05-30563
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 715–716

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-30563.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 12, 2006.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Vincent T. Lombardi, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Suzanne Lee Elliott, Esq., Law Offices of Suzanne Lee Elliott, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eduardo Ramirez appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction to use of a communication facility, in violation U.S.C. § 843(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ramirez contends that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because, inter alia, he played a minor role in the conspiracy and cooperated with the government. We disagree. Because the record reveals that during the sentencing hearing, the court took into account these considerations, and balanced them against other relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offense and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the 48-month sentence was reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.