NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10517 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00038-GEB v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK W. COON, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Frank W. Coon appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 210-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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).

Coon contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the alleged disparity between his sentence and the sentences received by similarly situated defendants. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Coon’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The low-end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, the district court necessarily considered the issue of unwarranted disparities by properly calculating and reviewing the Guidelines range. See id. at 54 (“Since the District Judge correctly calculated and carefully reviewed the Guidelines range, he necessarily gave significant weight and consideration to the need to avoid unwarranted disparities.”).

Coon’s contention that the manner in which the child pornography guidelines were amended violates the separation of powers doctrine is foreclosed.

See United States v. Kiefer, 760 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2014) (rejecting argument that U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 violates the separation of powers doctrine).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-10517