Rodriguez

MEMORANDUM **

Federico Castrejon Rodriguez appeals the 63-month sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Rodriguez first contends the district court erred by sentencing him and his co-defendant to disparate sentences. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Bischel, 61 F.3d 1429, 1437 (9th Cir.1995), we conclude Rodriguez’s contention is without merit because the district court relied upon permissible, relevant factors in justifying the disparate *528 sentences. Id.; see also USSG §§ 5H1.7 (role in offense), 5H1.8 (criminal history). Rodriguez also argues the disparity violates the Eighth Amendment. Because the Eighth Amendment prohibits only gross disproportionality between crime and punishment, and not disparity among co-defendants’ sentences, this argument is without merit. See United States v. Cupa-Guillen, 34 F.3d 860, 864 (9th Cir.1994).

Rodriguez next contends the government’s use of an informant violated the Eighth Amendment. Even if we assume the Eighth Amendment can be used to render a conviction…