Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ismael ARCE-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-29
Citations: 275 F. App'x 735
Docket Number: No. 07-10082
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ismael ARCE-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 735–736

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ismael ARCE-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10082.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed April 29, 2008.
Jerry R. Albert, Esq., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Peter B. Keller, Esq., Keller & Postero, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ismael Arce-Mejia appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii), and 846; and knowing and intentional possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arce-Mejia contends that the district court abused its discretion by placing undue emphasis on the sentencing guidelines in imposing the sentence, without giving equivalent consideration to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record reflects that the district court gave careful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors, including the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities, before granting a downward variance and imposing a below-Guidelines range sentence. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 599, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence imposed is reasonable. See id. at 596-97.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.