Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-26
Citations: 363 F. App'x 496
Docket Number: No. 09-30164
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30164.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
Shawn Anderson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kimberly Ann Deater, Law Office of Kimberly Deater, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, 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
Jose Guadalupe Aguilar appeals from the 115-month sentence imposed following his jury-verdict conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of body armor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 931(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Aguilar contends that the district court judge committed procedural error by relying on clearly erroneous facts at sentencing. The record reflects that the district court judge did not procedurally err. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (stating that it is procedural error to select a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts).
Aguilar also contends that the sentence at the top of the Guidelines range was substantively unreasonable. However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Aguilar's argument that he should receive some credit for acceptance of responsibility. See id. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the district court's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.