Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Garibay DELGADO, a.k.a. Brain, a.k.a. Aaron Ruben Garibay-Delgado, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-30
Citations: 464 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 10-50383
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Garibay DELGADO, a.k.a. Brain, a.k.a. Aaron Ruben Garibay-Delgado, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Garibay DELGADO, a.k.a. Brain, a.k.a. Aaron Ruben Garibay-Delgado, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50383.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 30, 2011.
Terri Kay Flynn, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, Michael J. Rapha el, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca Putnam Jones, Attorney at Law PC, San Diego, CA, for Defendants Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Aaron Garibay Delgado appeals from the 235-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846, and for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Delgado contends that the district court committed procedural error by treating the sentencing range calculated by reference to the Career Offender Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(b)(A), as "virtually mandatory," by overemphasizing the need for deterrence, and by "failing] to recognize the numerous ways in which courts are permitted to deviate from the career offender guidelines." The record belies these contentions.
Delgado also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court ignored "the tremendous extent to which [his] priors unreasonably increased [his] advisory Guidelines" and gave "virtually no weight to his personal characteristics and history." He argues that his sentence was greater than necessary to serve the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These contentions are without merit. The 235-month sentence, which was 57 months below the correctly-calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, was substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (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.