Case ID: f-appx_394/html/0406-01.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. Yuri Saul DELEON-ARCHILA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10407.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2010.
    Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael K. Powell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, for Defen-danh-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yuri Saul Deleon-Archila appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Deleon-Archila contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to: 1) fully address his non-frivolous arguments in support of a lower sentence; 2) adequately explain the sentence imposed; and 8) consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Deleon-Ar-chila also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court considered Deleon-Archila’s arguments and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.

Deleon-Archila’s contention that his sentence violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because his prior convictions were neither admitted, nor established by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, is foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir.2009).

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