Case ID: f-appx_421/html/0774-01.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. Omar Francisco RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Omar Francisco Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 16, 2011.
    Liza M. Granoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joseph A. Duarte, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Omar Francisco Rodriguez-Jimenez appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rodriguez-Jimenez contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable and failed to give adequate consideration to the all of the relevant circumstances, including the fact that he returned to the United States only to be present for the birth of his second child. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Rodriguez-Jimenez’s criminal and disciplinary history, the 51-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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