
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Merrill Clark GARDNER, a.k.a. Clark Gardner, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30183
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 14, 2017
    Colin Michael Rubich, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Robert L. Kelleher, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Kelleher Law Office, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Merrill Clark Gardner, Pro Se
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Merrill Clark Gardner appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 183-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gardner contends that the district court erred by applying a four-level aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded, based on the undisputed facts in the pre-sentence report and the testimony of Special Agent Robert Grayson, that Gardner acted as a leader or organizer of the conspiracy 'within the meaning of section 3B1.1(a). See United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2008) (enhancement supported where evidence established that defendant exercised control over others and “exercised decision making authority in the procurement and distribution of narcotics”); see also United States v. Garcia, 497 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2007) (enhancement “does not require control over all of the five or more participants”).

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