Guerrero

facts. Because Guerrero did not raise these claims below, we review for plain

error. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013).

The district court did not plainly err. The record reflects that the court did

not impose or lengthen Guerrero’s sentence to promote his rehabilitation. See

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 334 (2011) (“A court commits no error by

discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison[.]”). Moreover, the

court considered Guerrero’s mitigating arguments and explained in detail why it

did not believe they supported a shorter sentence. Finally, Guerrero has not shown

any clear error in the court’s factual findings at sentencing, see United States v.

Asagba, 77 F.3d 324, 325-26 (9th Cir. 1996), or a “reasonable probability” that the

court would have imposed a lower sentence absent any of the alleged procedural

errors, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

Guerrero also argues that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively

unreasonable because it creates a sentencing disparity with other similarly situated

defendants and because the district court placed too much weight on…