
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50131.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    July 3, 2012.
    Mack Jenkins, Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Christopher Khoo Pelham, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Todd William Burns, Burns & Cohan, Attorneys at Law, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ignacio Herrera appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Herrera contends that the district court procedurally erred by denying him a four-level departure under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.2 on the basis of his medical condition. Herrera never requested this particular departure in the district court. In any event, our review of a decision not to depart considers only whether the resulting sentence was substantively reasonable. See United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421-22 (9th Cir.2011). Herrera’s sentence 15 months below the bottom of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the seriousness of the offense and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

To the extent that Herrera argues that the district court failed to consider particular factors relevant to his medical condition in selecting a sentence, the record belies this contention.

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