Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith E. PEER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-29
Citations: 305 F. App'x 442
Docket Number: No. 07-30122
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Keith E. PEER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 442–442

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Keith E. PEER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-30122.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 29, 2008.
Stephanie Whitaker, Esq., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeffry Keith Finer, Esq., Law Offices of Jeffry Finer Spokane, WA, for Defendant Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Keith E. Peer appeals from the 235-month sentence imposed, on remand, for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Peer contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider the disparity between his sentence and the sentences of his co-defendants. We reject this contention. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2006).
Peer also contends that the district court erred under U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 when it applied certain sentencing enhancements based on facts found in the presentence report ("PSR") and in special jury verdicts instead of making its own independent findings. We conclude that the district court sufficiently stated its findings on the record as to any disputed facts, and that the court did not otherwise err in relying on the PSR or the special verdict findings. See United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Cabaccang, 481 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.