NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10324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, 552 U.S. 38, 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 Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also 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 19-10324