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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 Central District of California. D.C. No. 5:10-cr-00027-VAP. Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Daniel Ackerman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA; Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ami Sheth, Assistant U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Los Angeles, CA; Ann Luotto Wolf, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Santa Ana, CA.
For GREGORY ANTHONY FLORES, AKA Greg Flores, AKA Gregor A. Flores, AKA Gregory Flores, Defendant - Appellant: Timothy Allen Scott, Attorney, Law Offices of Timothy A. Scott, San Diego, CA.
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Gregory Anthony Flores appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 144-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 1343 and 1349; and tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Flores contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his age and poor health, and because U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 lacks proper empirical foundation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Flores's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (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 Flores's offense conduct. See id. Moreover, the district court was under no obligation to vary from the Guidelines based on policy considerations. See United States v. Carper, 659 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.