
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathan Eli THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10614.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
    Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Russell E. Marsh, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alina Maria Shell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FISHER, GOULD, 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

Nathan Eli Thomas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Thomas argues that the district court took “insufficient notice of substantial mitigating factors such as [his] skill as a musician, his reputation in the community as a kind, non-violent person, and the role of substance abuse in the commission of the offense.” He further contends that the court failed to “address the fact that [he] will not receive the full benefits of [the Bureau of Prisons’] residential drug treatment program.” We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n. 3 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered and addressed Thomas’s mitigating arguments and concluded that they did not warrant a lower sentence.

In a related vein, Thomas argues that the district court “unduly discounted [his] history and characteristics, his talents as a person and musician, and his strong prospects for rehabilitation” in selecting a sentence. “The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court,” United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009), and the court did not abuse its discretion here. The 48-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 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.
     