Unpublished Disposition, 861 F.2d 269 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Monte Dayton Ross pled guilty to a single count in a superseding indictment listing nine overt acts of conspiring to solicit a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. Ross now appeals that sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the same sentence on Ross that was imposed on his co-defendants despite their allegedly greater degree of culpability. Because Ross's sentence was within the statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C. § 371, we review for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522, 1545 (CA9 1988).

A sentencing judge does not abuse his discretion so long as he considers mitigating and aggravating factors before pronouncing sentence. United States v. Rachels, 820 F.2d 325, 328 (CA9 1987). As noted, the record reflects that Ross pled guilty to a superseding indictment that charged him with nine overt acts done alone or in concert with co-defendants Oliphant and Arthur. Moreover, the court stated that it had reviewed both the uncontested presentence report and the matters presented at the detention hearing before imposing sentence. Under these facts, we find no abuse of discretion.

To the extent that Ross makes an argument that the district court should have explained the basis for the sentence imposed, we note that, absent an allegation of unconstitutionality, no such general requirement exists. United States v. Hall, 778 F.2d 1427, 1428-29 (CA9 1985); United States v. Thompson, 541 F.2d 794, 795 (CA9 1976).

AFFIRMED.