Case ID: f-appx_225/html/0638-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincente ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10386.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2007.
    
    Filed March 21, 2007.
    Richard J. Suzuki Fax, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. Deconcini, U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      James S. Park, Esq., Park Law Office, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vincente Ortiz appeals from the 52-month sentence imposed following his jury conviction of illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ortiz contends that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence by failing to consider all of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Because the record reflects that the district court properly weighed and considered the various factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we conclude that Ortiz’s sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A district court is not required to refer to each factor listed in § 3553(a).”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.