United States v. Aguilar

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2026
• Docket: 24-6840
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-6840 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:23-cr-00218-JSC-2 v. MEMORANDUM* JORDY AGUILAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jacqueline Scott Corley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Jordy Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

54-month, below-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty-plea

conviction for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of

methamphetamine and fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).

* 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). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Aguilar first contends the district court erroneously applied 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(6), which requires the court to consider the need to avoid unwarranted

sentencing disparities. Because Aguilar did not raise this argument in the district

court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d

1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The court did not plainly err. Contrary to Aguilar’s

argument, the record as a whole reflects that the court considered comparator cases

involving defendants “who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(6). In the absence of additional specific comparator cases identified by

Aguilar, he has not shown a “reasonable probability” he would have received an

even greater downward variance absent the alleged error. See United States v.

Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

Aguilar also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light

of the more lenient sentence received by his co-defendant. The district court made

clear, however, that it did not view Aguilar and his co-defendant as similarly

situated. See United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (a

sentencing disparity is not unwarranted if the co-defendants are not similarly

situated). As to Aguilar, the court further explained that the seriousness of the drug

offense, which was exacerbated by the presence of two loaded guns belonging to

Aguilar, and the need for general deterrence supported a 54-month sentence.

2 24-6840 Considering the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,

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).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-6840