Case ID: f-appx_280/html/0609-01.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. Francisco GUTIERREZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-50446.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 20, 2008.
    
    Filed May 28, 2008.
    USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michelle Betancourt, Esq., FDSD-Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Gutierrez-Hernandez appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Gutierrez-Hernandez contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court placed improper weight on his criminal history, failed to properly respond to his arguments at sentencing, and failed to conduct an individualized analysis in light of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He further contends that the district court failed to provide sufficient reasoning pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) in imposing his sentence.

The record reflects, however, that in imposing a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range, the district court specifically noted that it had considered his contentions and considered the § 3553(a) factors without giving undue weight to any single factor. See Rita v. United States, -U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). In addition, the court stated the reasons for the sentence imposed in enough detail to demonstrate that it had “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Id.; see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the reference in the judgment to “8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b).” See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

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