Flowers

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant Anthony Flowers appeals his re-sentencing. He claims that the 312-month sentence that the district court im *670 posed was unreasonable because it (1) considered the sentences of his co-defendants who were sentenced before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); (2) increased his sentence based on facts not found by a jury; (3) applied a preponderance of the evidence standard to calculate the applicable drug quantity; and (4) relied on police reports to determine his criminal history category. On de novo review, United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1279 (9th Cir.2006), we affirm.

1. The district court understood the correct legal standard to apply — that the Guidelines must be considered but are only advisory — and engaged in an individualized analysis of Defendant’s situation. United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir.2005). In addition to considering the sentences of Defendant’s co-defendants, the court took into account Defendant’s lack of guidance growing up, his family obligations, his remorse, his acceptance of responsibility, and his failure in the past to reform after having served a…