Case ID: f-appx_373/html/0695-01.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. Eleazar SANCHEZ-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 09-30180, 09-30181.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed April 1, 2010.
    James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lisa Jeannine Bazant, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Eleazar Sanchez-Herrera appeals from the 66-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry of deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez-Herrera contends that the district court procedurally erred and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by failing to discuss his individual and personal characteristics when imposing the sentence. The record shows that the district court considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and defense counsel’s arguments when determining Sanchez-Herrera’s sentence, and therefore did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Further, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court’s sentence was substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

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