
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicole KISSANE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-50019
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Ajay Krishnamurthy, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Parmley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph S. Smith, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Charles Ellis, Jr., Sarah Rose Weinman, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., 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

Nicole Kissane appeals the 21-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea to conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 43. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Kissane contends that the distinct court procedurally erred in imposing the sentence because it relied on clearly erroneous facts, and did not consider or address her arguments regarding sentencing disparity. We review for plain error, see United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2012), and conclude that there is none. Contrary to Kissane’s argument, the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. The court did not treat her mitigating circumstances as aggravating, but rather concluded that they did not justify the below-Guidelines sentence that Kissane requested. Moreover, the court expressly considered Kissane’s sentencing disparity arguments, as well as the other mitigating circumstances she presented, and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The court was not required to compare Kis-sane’s sentence to sentences imposed in unrelated cases. See United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010).

Kissane also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993. Given the deference due to a district court’s sentencing determination and in light of the totality of the circumstances, the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 995.

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