Opinion
21-10358
12-14-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SERGIO ANTONIO HARO, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 4:05-cr-00125-DCB-BPV-2
Before: BYBEE, OWENS, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Sergio Haro appeals from the district court's sentence imposed at resentencing pursuant to our remand in United States v. Haro-Verdugo, 748 Fed.Appx. 727, 729-30, 732 (9th Cir. 2018). "We review a district court's sentencing decision for abuse of discretion." United States v. Brown, 42 F.4th 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2022). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a below-guidelines 300-month sentence on Haro at resentencing. Contrary to his contention, Haro's sentence did not create an unwarranted disparity with the sentences of his codefendants because they were not similarly situated as his co-defendants were convicted of less serious offenses and/or pled guilty. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (requiring a sentencing court to consider "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct"); United States v. Garro, 517 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that the defendant "was not similarly situated to those with whom he compared himself because they had either pled guilty or had committed different crimes"). Moreover, at sentencing, the district court sufficiently addressed Haro's argument regarding his sentence compared to those of his co-defendants.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).