Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen Ray BRIGGS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-17
Citations: 486 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: Nos. 11-30382, 11-30383, 11-30384, 11-30385
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen Ray BRIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 655–655

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen Ray BRIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 11-30382, 11-30383, 11-30384, 11-30385.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 17, 2012.
James A. Goeke, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Philip Edward Nino, Spokane, WA, for D efend ant-Appellant.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Glen Ray Briggs appeals from the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for various drug, firearm and escape offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Briggs contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because his Guidelines sentencing range was based on a fictional amount of drugs, and because the sentence is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing. The district court considered Briggs's mitigation arguments, including his contentions regarding the fictional nature of the drugs, in imposing a below-Guidelines sentence. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. 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.