
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oswaldo ZUNIGA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30042.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 16, 2011.
    Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Mis-soula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vernon Edward Woodward, Woodward & Casey, PLLC, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oswaldo Zuniga-Sanchez appeals from the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Zuniga-Sanchez contends that the district court erred in imposing a two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The district court did not clearly err in finding that the connection between the handgun and the drug conspiracy was not “clearly improbable.” See United States v. Lopez-Sandoval, 146 F.3d 712, 714-16 (9th Cir.1998).

Zuniga-Sanchez also contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the 135-month sentence at the low-end of the Guidelines range was reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The fact that the district court acknowledged that a sentence at the statutory minimum of 120 months would also have been reasonable does not alter this conclusion, as the “parsimony clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) functions not as a constraint on appellate review but rather as a directive to the district court in the first instance. See United States v. Chavez, 611 F.3d 1006, 1010-11 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     