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:T409,MEMORANDUM Jose Gallardo-Dedios appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Gallardo-Dedios contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is higher than the sentences of his co-defendants, resulting in an unwarranted sentencing disparity. The bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.2006) (“[S]entencing courts are to consider how the sentencing factors apply to each defendant and determine whether an individualized sentence is warranted.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T436,

MEMORANDUM

Jose Gallardo-Dedios appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Gallardo-Dedios contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is higher than the sentences of his co-defendants, resulting in an unwarranted sentencing disparity. The bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.2006) (“[S]entencing courts are to consider how the sentencing factors apply to each defendant and determine whether an individualized sentence is warranted.”).

AFFIRMED.

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