Case ID: f-appx_478/html/0473-01.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. Erwin ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10622.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 14, 2012.
    Amy Elizabeth Peery, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant>-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Erwin Alvarado appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alvarado contends that the district court erred by not sua sponte granting him a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. He argues that the reason cited by the government for refusing to make the motion for the reduction, that he reserved his right to appeal, is an impermissible reason under U.S.S.G. § 3E 1.1(b). As Alvarado concedes, this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 1002 (9th Cir.2009), where we held that the expenditure of resources in anticipating and preparing for an appeal is an appropriate consideration under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b). '

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