USA V. TAWASHA, No. 23-492 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 4 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-492 D.C. No. 4:22-cr-00076-YGR-4 MEMORANDUM* JIHAD JAD TAWASHA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 26, 2024** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Jihad Jad Tawasha appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Tawasha contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it creates unwarranted sentencing disparities with his co-defendants and does not adequately account for his drug addiction. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the below-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). As the court explained, Tawasha was not similarly situated to his co-defendants. See United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir. 2014) (appellant’s “sentencing disparity argument is undermined by his more extensive criminal history”). In addition, the court accounted for Tawasha’s mitigating circumstances by imposing a sentence 27 months below the low end of the Guidelines range. It did not abuse its discretion in failing to vary downward even further. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 23-492

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.