
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Dean JAYNE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30147
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Joshua Van de Wetering, Van De Wet-ering Law Offices, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    
      Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joseph Dean Jayne, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 150-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jayne contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement for his leadership role in the offense under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c). We review a district court’s determination that a defendant was an organizer or leader for purposes of applying a sentence enhancement for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 862 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The undisputed facts in the presentence report reflect that Jayne procured the drugs from suppliers for others to transport and distribute, and had another co-conspirator act as his “muscle.” This evidence supported a finding that Jayne had “the ability and influence necessary to coordinate the activities of others to achieve the desired result, whether or not [he had] a superior rank in a criminal hierarchy.” United States v. Doe, 778 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir. 2015).

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