Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Rafael AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-28
Citations: 601 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 14-50064
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Rafael AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 601
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Rafael AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50064.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2015.
Filed April 28, 2015.
Jean-Claude Andre, Cameron Schroeder, Assistant U.S., Mack Jenkins, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Karyn H. Bu-cur, Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, 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
Edgar Rafael Aguilar appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and address his argument that a Guidelines sentence created an unwarranted sentence disparity between him and his co-defendants. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court correctly considered the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Aguilar next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the alleged sentencing disparity and the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Aguilar's sentence. 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, including Aguilar's criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir.2009) (district court is justified in imposing different sentences on defendants who are convicted of different crimes).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.