Court Opinion

ID: 2745764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-27 20:01:02.378788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:13:17.041056
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            OCT 27 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-10018

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00333-JGZ-
                                                 BPV-1
  v.

DAVID ANGULO-VISCARRA, a.k.a.                    MEMORANDUM*
David Angulo-Vizcarra,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted August 18, 2014**

Before:        HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

       David Angulo-Viscarra appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 40-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

attempted exportation of goods from the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
554(a) and 22 U.S.C. § 2278(b)(2) and (c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

      Angulo-Viscarra contends that the district court failed to consider his

argument regarding unwarranted sentencing disparities and did not sufficiently

explain the reasons for rejecting that argument. Because Angulo-Viscarra did not

object on these grounds below, we review for plain error. See United States v.

Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008). Angulo-Viscarra has not shown plain

error affecting his substantial rights. See id.; United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,

991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107,

1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that co-defendants are not similarly situated and

therefore not subjected to unwarranted sentencing disparities where they are

convicted of different offenses).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2