United States of America v. Noel Gallardo-Medina, a.k.a. Gustavo Chavez, a.k.a. Noe Gallardo- Medina, a.k.a.…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NOEL GALLARDO-MEDINA, a.k.a.
Gustavo Chavez, a.k.a. Noe Gallardo-
Medina, a.k.a. Gordo, a.k.a. Noe,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50057
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00566-MMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Noel Gallardo-Medina appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, in violation of 21
FILED
MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Gallardo-Medina contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of the unduly harsh nature of the methamphetamine Guidelines and the
district court’s failure to give sufficient weight to the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Gallardo-Medina’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the
nature of the offense and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for
the discretion of the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.
15-50057 2

-- 2 of 2 --