Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe Martin VAZQUEZ-DAZA, a.k.a. Noe Vasquez Daza, a.k.a. Noe M. Vazquez-Daza, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-27
Citations: 591 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 14-10045
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe Martin VAZQUEZ-DAZA, a.k.a. Noe Vasquez Daza, a.k.a. Noe M. Vazquez-Daza, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 591
Pages: 548–548

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe Martin VAZQUEZ-DAZA, a.k.a. Noe Vasquez Daza, a.k.a. Noe M. Vazquez-Daza, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10045.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
Filed Jan. 27, 2015.
Anne Elizabeth Mosher, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew J. McGuire, Patagonia, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Noe Martin Vazquez-Dáza, pro se.
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Noe Martin Vazquez-Daza appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vazquez-Daza contends that the district court erred by failing to consider his request for a downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). We review for plain error, see United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 805 (9th Cir.2012), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.