
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Haoren MA, a.k.a. Horen Ma, a.k.a. Fanjie Meng, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50215.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 29, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Keri Curtis Axel, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy Allen Scott, Law Offices of Timothy A. Scott, San Diego, CA, 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

Haoren Ma appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 54-month sentence imposed follow his conviction for conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;- presentation of a false immigration document or application, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a); and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ma contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because his code-fendant received a sentence of 12 months and one day. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ma’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. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Bendtzen, 542 F.3d 722, 729 (9th Cir.2008) (noting that a Guidelines or below-Guidelines sentence will usually be reasonable). Moreover, the disparity between Ma’s sentence and that of his code-fendant was not unwarranted because they had different criminal histories and played different roles in the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir.2009).

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