Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lauro AGUILAR-CANCHE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 362 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: Nos. 08-30350, 08-30351
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lauro AGUILAR-CANCHE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 618–618

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lauro AGUILAR-CANCHE, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 08-30350, 08-30351.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Vincent Thomas Lombardi, II, Esquire, Darwin Paul Roberts, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Matthew H. Thomas, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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, Lauro Aguilar-Canche appeals from the 60-month sentence and the 120-month consecutive sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for various drug offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and (b)(1)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Aguilar-Canche contends that the district court erred by placing undue emphasis on his alleged involvement in a tobacco smuggling scheme while he was detained pretrial, and on the fact that he committed the second offense while on pretrial release for the first offense. The district court conducted a well-reasoned and balanced analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.