NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10429
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00796-SPL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERTO CARLOS LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Carlos Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B),
(b)(2), and 2256. 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).
Lopez contends that at sentencing, the district court procedurally erred by
referring to 20,000 victims, rather than 20,000 images, and by failing to explain
why it imposed a sentence greater than the sentences imposed in unrelated cases.
We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the
district court understood that Lopez possessed over 20,000 images and simply
misspoke when it referred to 20,000 victims. Moreover, the district court
adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). It was not required to address each sentencing disparity
alleged by Lopez. See United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1012 (9th Cir.
2010).
Lopez also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of
the lower sentences recommended by the probation office and by the government,
and in light of the alleged disparity between his sentence and the sentences of
similarly situated defendants. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court took account of
disparity concerns and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence that is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10429