
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul BAKER, a.k.a. Darwin Stanton Baker, Jr., a.k.a. Paul D. Baker, a.k.a. Paul Douglas Baker, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50163
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, Stephen Anthony Cazares, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Carl Lemon, II, Attorney, Law Offices of John C. Lemon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Baker appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the aggregate 135-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial convictions for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and offer and sale of unregistered securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; mail fraud securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; offer and sale of unregistered securities and aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e and 77x and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Baker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his request for a downward departure for mental and emotional conditions and physical condition under U.S.S.G. §§ 5H1.3 and 5H1.4. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the court considered Baker’s arguments and sufficiently explained its reasons for concluding that a mid-range sentence was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

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