Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Franklin John SALAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-20
Citations: 703 F. App'x 459
Docket Number: No. 16-10345
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Franklin John SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and . GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 459–459

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Franklin John SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10345
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2017
Rosetta Laura San Nicolas, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USHA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Franklin John Salas, pro se.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, 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
Franklin John Salas appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Salas contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court (i) double counted by applying a Guidelines enhancement for leadership and also justifying a high-end sentence for that same reason, (ii) used his negative drug tests, an ostensibly mitigating factor, as an aggravating factor, and (iii) used his failure to cooperate fully with the government as an aggravating factor. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. The record belies Salas's argument that the district court treated his negative drug tests as an aggravating factor. Moreover, the district court properly considered Salas's leadership role and lack of cooperation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court may weigh factors already accounted for in the Guidelines calculation when selecting the sentence under section 3553(a)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.