United States v. Edgar Aguilar , 601 F. App'x 513 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50064
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01068-ODW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDGAR RAFAEL AGUILAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Rafael Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute controlled
substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 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).
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider and address his argument that a Guidelines sentence created an
unwarranted sentence disparity between him and his co-defendants. We review for
plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court correctly
considered the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities and sufficiently
explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
Aguilar next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of the alleged sentencing disparity and the mitigating factors. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in imposing Aguilar’s sentence. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including Aguilar’s criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51;
see also United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court
is justified in imposing different sentences on defendants who are convicted of
different crimes).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50064