
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Javier RUIZ-PELAYO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30206.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 10, 2010.
    
      Kory Larsen, Special Assistant U.S., USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, 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

Jose Javier Ruiz-Pelayo appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ruiz-Pelayo contends that the distinct court procedurally erred by neglecting to meaningfully consider and address all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, Ruiz-Pelayo contends that the district court failed to specifically address his mitigating arguments and that it attached too much weight to the Guidelines range. The record reflects that the district court provided a reasoned sentencing explanation and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Diaz-Argueta, 564 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2009).

Ruiz-Pelayo also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record demonstrates that, under the totality of the circumstances, Ruiz-Pelayo’s 70-month sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Nichols, 464 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir.2006) (“[T]he question before us is not the reasonableness of [the defendant’s] and the government’s requested sentence, but rather whether the ultimate sentence imposed is reasonable.”) (internal quotations omitted).

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