
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Juan RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50371.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 21, 2012.
    Joseph Orabona, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      John Owen Lanahan, Law Office of John Lanahan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edgar Juan Rivera appeals from the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of illegal aliens and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii), (v)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The government contends that this appeal should be dismissed in light of the appeal waiver set forth in Rivera’s plea agreement. We decline to reach the issue of whether this appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver and instead affirm on the merits. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

Rivera first contends that the district court erred when it increased his base offense level to 18 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Ll.l(b)(6) because the offense involved a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Rivera contends that the district court instead should have applied a two-level enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2, which would have resulted in a base offense level of 14. The district court did not err because the Guidelines specifically cite “transporting persons in the trunk ... of a motor vehicle” as an exam-pie of reckless conduct that justifies the section 2Ll.l(b)(6) enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1 cmt. n. 5.

Rivera also contends that an unwarranted sentence disparity was created because the district court applied the section 2Ll.l(b)(6) enhancement to Rivera and not to his co-defendant. The district court did not err because Rivera, unlike his co-defendant, led the Border Patrol agents on a dangerous high-speed chase while two people were in the trunk of the car he was driving.

Finally, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable and there is no unwarranted sentencing disparity where, among other things, Rivera absconded from supervision while on bond. See United States v. Espi-noza-Baza, 647 F.3d 1182, 1195 (9th Cir.2011). 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     