
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar Leonardo INIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10274.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 25, 2015.
    Gordon Davenport, III, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Christopher Legrande Scileppi, Law Offices of Christopher L. Scileppi, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Omar Leonardo Iniguez appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon remand for resentencing following his guilty-plea conviction for various firearms offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Iniguez contends that the district court violated his due process rights because it imposed the same sentence on remand despite the fact that the advisory Guidelines range had been reduced one additional offense level for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b). The record reflects that the district court determined that the prior sentence remained appropriate on remand. Accordingly, the district court did not violate Iniguez’s due process rights. See United States v. Horob, 735 F.3d 866, 869-70 (9th Cir.2013) (per curiam).

Iniguez also contends that the court was obligated to depart or vary downward to the same extent it had at his initial sentencing hearing. This argument is unpersuasive. The record reflects that the district court varied downward from the Guidelines range at both sentencing hearings. Its decision to vary downward 22 months at the resentencing hearing, rather than 27 months, was not an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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