
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Bruce HIPPLE, III, a.k.a. Robbie, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30016.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 25, 2015.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Amy Jaquette, Assistant U.S., DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy R. Lohraff, Seattle, WA, 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

Robert Bruce Hippie, III, appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hippie cdntends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on clearly erroneous facts regarding prescription drugs. We review for plain error, see United States v. Christensen, 782 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir.2013), and find none. Hippie has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the alleged error. See id. at 1105-06.

Hippie next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it creates an unwarranted sentencing disparity with his codefendant. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Hippie’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense and Hippie’s criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir.2009) (sentencing disparities among differently situated defendants are not unwarranted).

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