
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victorio PEREZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-50150
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Karla Davis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Kurt David Hermansen, Law Office of Kurt David Hermansen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, 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

Victorio Perez-Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez-Romero contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating circumstances in this case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Perez-Romero’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of methamphetamine involved in the offense, See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     