Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Michael JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-27
Citations: 475 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 11-50256
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David Michael JIMENEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David Michael JIMENEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-50256.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 27, 2012.
Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Fred W. Slaughter, Assistant U.S., AUSA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Santa Ana Branch Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alexander Griggs, Law Office of Alexander Griggs, San Pedro, CA, Fredricco McCurry, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
David Michael Jimenez appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distrib ute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jimenez contends that the district court proeedurally erred by basing his sentence on internet research. This contention is belied by the record because the court did not impose sentence on the basis of internet research. There was no plain error.
Jimenez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 53-60, 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.