22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T524,MEMORANDUM Richard M. Rossignol appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 240-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Rossignol contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the alleged sentencing disparity between his sentence and that of his co-conspirator, and because the 24-level enhancement he received under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(m) overstated the seriousness of the offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the number of victims and the loss amount. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 ; see also United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (finding no unwarranted sentencing disparity between individuals who plead guilty and those who put the government to its burden of proof). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T551,

MEMORANDUM

Richard M. Rossignol appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 240-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Rossignol contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the alleged sentencing disparity between his sentence and that of his co-conspirator, and because the 24-level enhancement he received under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(m) overstated the seriousness of the offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the number of victims and the loss amount. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 ; see also United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (finding no unwarranted sentencing disparity between individuals who plead guilty and those who put the government to its burden of proof).

AFFIRMED.

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