factors, but mere disagreement does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 422 F.3d 782, 793-95 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam). First, in considering the seriousness of Defendant’s offenses, the district court found that his offenses were “serious” or “very serious” because, among other things, the jury convicted Defendant of several felonies that carried substantial penalties. Among those offenses were conspiracy, which involved the cooperation of several parties, and smuggling offenses that implicated international treaties and involved a large number of protected animals. We agree with the district court that Defendant’s offenses were serious: In the first trial, the jury convicted De 65, 1268 (5th Cir.1986) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); United States v. King, 664 F.2d 1171, 1173
holding that defendants conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute which was classified as a misdemeanor under south carolina law was properly deemed a felony for career offender purposes because offense was punishable by up to five years imprisonment holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious holding that alien smuggling offenses punishable by up to five years imprisonment each were a serious offense for speedy trial act purposes holding that sentences of five years in prison followed by ten years probation were illegal sentences that exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for a thirddegree felony holding that a defendant who received a suspended sentence of 157 days in jail was convicted of an offense punishable by more than oneyear of incarceration because california law provided for a sentence of up to three years imprisonment