Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Ferreras DAVID, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-21
Citations: 389 F. App'x 595
Docket Number: No. 09-10373
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Ferreras DAVID, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Ferreras DAVID, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10373.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 21, 2010.
Karon Virginia Johnson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USHA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard P. Arens, Senior Litigation, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Mong-mong, GU, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Richard Ferreras David appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine hydrochloride (ice), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we'affirm.
David contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately consider his argument that the two-level enhancement for importation of methamphetamine under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(4) created an unwarranted .sentencing disparity among similarly situated defendants. The record reflects that the district court listened to the parties' arguments and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
David further contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the importation enhancement is arbitrary, does not properly reflect the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and unfairly overstates his offense conduct. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.