United States of America v. Jihad Jad Tawasha

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIHAD JAD TAWASHA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-492
D.C. No.
4:22-cr-00076-YGR-4
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Jihad Jad Tawasha appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession
with intent to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 4 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-492
Tawasha contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it
creates unwarranted sentencing disparities with his co-defendants and does not
adequately account for his drug addiction. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the below-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). As the court explained, Tawasha was not similarly
situated to his co-defendants. See United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 949 (9th
Cir. 2014) (appellant’s “sentencing disparity argument is undermined by his more
extensive criminal history”). In addition, the court accounted for Tawasha’s
mitigating circumstances by imposing a sentence 27 months below the low end of
the Guidelines range. It did not abuse its discretion in failing to vary downward
even further. See 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.

-- 2 of 2 --