Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0883-01.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. Noel SANDOVAL-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50112.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
    Steve Miller, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brian Paul Funk, Esquire, Law Offices of Brian P. Funk, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Noel Sandoval-Aguilar appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sandoval-Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider sentencing disparities, that his sentence is punishment for exercising his rights, and that the district court failed to adequately explain his sentence. Sandoval-Aguilar also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary in light of his mitigating factors. A review of the record demonstrates that the district court did not procedurally err, and that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Finally, Sandoval-Aguilar contends, without supporting argument, that the statutory maximum for his offense is 24 months. This court has held that the statutory maximum for reentry crimes is 20 years where, as here, the defendant has received a sentencing enhancement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). See United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2006).

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