Court Opinion

ID: 9957646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 19:01:10.262989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:34.185203
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         APR 4 2024
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 23-492
                                                 D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,               4:22-cr-00076-YGR-4
 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JIHAD JAD TAWASHA,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Jihad Jad Tawasha appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession

with intent to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
       Tawasha contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it

creates unwarranted sentencing disparities with his co-defendants and does not

adequately account for his drug addiction. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing the below-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). As the court explained, Tawasha was not similarly

situated to his co-defendants. See United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 949 (9th

Cir. 2014) (appellant’s “sentencing disparity argument is undermined by his more

extensive criminal history”). In addition, the court accounted for Tawasha’s

mitigating circumstances by imposing a sentence 27 months below the low end of

the Guidelines range. It did not abuse its discretion in failing to vary downward

even further. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.

2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the

discretion of the district court.”).

       AFFIRMED.

                                        2                                    23-492