Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Sofonias RIASCOS-RIASCOS, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-22
Citations: 329 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 08-50018
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Sofonias RIASCOS-RIASCOS, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 153–153

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Sofonias RIASCOS-RIASCOS, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 08-50018.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 22, 2009.
David P. Curnow, Carol M. Lee, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William R. Burgener, Law Office of William R. Burgener, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sofonias Riascos-Riascos appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed upon re-sentencing following this court's remand because the district court did not address the "statutory sentencing factors." We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Riascos-Riascos contends that the district court erred by failing to grant him a minor role adjustment. The law of the case doctrine bars us from entertaining this contention. See United States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir.1998).
Riascos-Riascos also contends that the district court placed too much weight on the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and failed to consider sentencing disparities, and that his sentence is unreasonable in light of his circumstances. Riascos-Riascos' sentence is proeedurally sound and substantively reasonable. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1002 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.