NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUN 9 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 19-10324

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                1:18-cr-00003-DAD-BAM-1
 v.

BERT HARRIS,                                    MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Bert Harris appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

123-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for carrying a

firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c), being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.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).
§ 922(g)(1), and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

       Harris contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district

court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 

, 51

(2007). The sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range is substantively

reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the

circumstances, including, as the district court highlighted, the nature of the offense,

Harris’s criminal history, and the need to protect the public. See 

; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 

, 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                                     19-10324