Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe De Jesus CHAVOYA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-18
Citations: 598 F. App'x 560
Docket Number: No. 14-50196
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe De Jesus CHAVOYA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 598
Pages: 560–560

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe De Jesus CHAVOYA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50196.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 18, 2015.
Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michelle Lynn Maisto, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeremy D. Warren, Warren & Burstein, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Felipe de Jesus Chavoya appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Chavoya contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his history and circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Chavoya's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) ("The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.