Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. 2:11-cr-02456-NVW. Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Dominique Juliet Park, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX - OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Phoenix, AZ.
For GILBERTO FERNANDEZ-AISPURO, Defendant - Appellant: Peter B. Keller, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Peter B Keller, Tucson, AZ.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Gilberto Fernandez-Aispuro appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and possession with intent to distribute marijuana and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Fernandez-Aispuro contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court placed too much emphasis on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, this was his first felony conviction, and his immigration status rendered him ineligible for the Bureau of Prisons' drug treatment program. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Fernandez-Aispuro's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense, the need to protect the public, and the need to provide adequate deterrence. See id.
AFFIRMED.