Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe GOMEZ TREJO, a/k/a Felipe Gomez Trejo, Relipe Trejo, Felipe Gomez, Felipe Trejogomez, Relipe Gomez Trejo, Feipe Trejo Gomez, Felipe Trejo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-26
Citations: 215 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 05-50774
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe GOMEZ TREJO, a/k/a Felipe Gomez Trejo, Relipe Trejo, Felipe Gomez, Felipe Trejogomez, Relipe Gomez Trejo, Feipe Trejo Gomez, Felipe Trejo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FISHER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS , District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 215
Pages: 613–613

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe GOMEZ TREJO, a/k/a Felipe Gomez Trejo, Relipe Trejo, Felipe Gomez, Felipe Trejogomez, Relipe Gomez Trejo, Feipe Trejo Gomez, Felipe Trejo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50774.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2006.
Filed Dec. 26, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Tracy L. Wilkison, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ronald O. Kaye, Esq., Kaye McLane & Bednarski, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FISHER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS , District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Audrey B. Collins, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Felipe Gomez Trejo appeals from the district court's sentence of 135 months after he pled guilty to drug conspiracy charges. Trejo argues that the district court erred by conflating the calculation of an advisory guidelines sentence with the application of other factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We disagree, and affirm the sentence.
The district judge clearly stated that he agreed with and had adopted the government's guidelines calculation. The judge also explained that a variety of mitigating factors persuaded him to sentence below the mandatory guidelines range. The district court therefore provided a sufficient explanation of the reasons underlying its sentence to enable appellate review. See, e.g., United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 985 (9th Cir.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.