United States of America v. Sergio Antonio Haro

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SERGIO ANTONIO HARO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10358
D.C. No.
4:05-cr-00125-DCB-BPV-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2022**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: BYBEE, OWENS, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Haro appeals from the district court’s sentence imposed at
resentencing pursuant to our remand in United States v. Haro-Verdugo, 748 F.
App’x 727, 729-30, 732 (9th Cir. 2018). “We review a district court’s sentencing
decision for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Brown, 42 F.4th 1142, 1145 (9th
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Cir. 2022). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a below-guidelines
300-month sentence on Haro at resentencing. Contrary to his contention, Haro’s
sentence did not create an unwarranted disparity with the sentences of his co-
defendants because they were not similarly situated as his co-defendants were
convicted of less serious offenses and/or pled guilty. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)
(requiring a sentencing court to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct”); United States v. Garro, 517 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2008)
(stating that the defendant “was not similarly situated to those with whom he
compared himself because they had either pled guilty or had committed different
crimes”). Moreover, at sentencing, the district court sufficiently addressed Haro’s
argument regarding his sentence compared to those of his co-defendants.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --