Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Marcos MIRANDA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-16
Citations: 597 F. App'x 462
Docket Number: No. 14-30116
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Marcos MIRANDA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Marcos MIRANDA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30116.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 16, 2015.
Alison L. Gregoire, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bryan Paul Whitaker, Attorney at Law, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Jose Marcos Miranda-Gareia appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Miranda-Gareia contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court based the sentence on an incorrect determination that he was a leader of the conspiracy. The record belies Miranda-Garcia's contention that the court made this determination. Moreover, the low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. 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.