Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JI SUNG SHIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-18
Citations: 264 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 06-10697
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JI SUNG SHIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 264
Pages: 613–613

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JI SUNG SHIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10697.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 18, 2008.
USHA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ji Sung Shin, Hagatna, GU, pro se.
Cynthia V. Ecube, Hagatna, GU, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ji Sung Shin appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for use of a communication facility, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Shin contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory and did not identify the subsection of 18 U.S.C. § 3353 on which it relied. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court considered the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a) and treated the Guidelines as advisory. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-600, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Shin also contends that his sentence is unreasonable because it is substantially longer than the sentences imposed on three co-defendants. However, the record indicates that "the district court had a reasonable basis under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines for the difference in the sentence each received." United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.