Opinion
20-10013
07-26-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH VASQUEZ, Jr., AKA Fat Joe, AKA Joe Vasquez, AKA Joseph Charles Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 1:18-cr-00076-LJO-BAM-6 for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Joseph Vasquez, Jr., appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 320-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vasquez contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it does not adequately account for his rehabilitative efforts and because it creates an unwarranted disparity with a co-defendant. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record makes clear that the court accounted for Vasquez's rehabilitation efforts by granting a downward variance, but concluded that a further variance was not warranted because of the role Vasquez played in the drug conspiracy and his previous convictions for drug trafficking. Contrary to Vasquez's argument, the court conducted an individualized assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of those factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, the alleged sentencing disparity is not unwarranted because Vasquez is not similarly situated to his co-defendant. See United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.