Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0603-01.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. Rigoberto MOLINA-URIOSTEGUI, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10390.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 22, 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 Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rigoberto Molina-Uriostegui appeals from the 41-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.

Molina-Uriostegui contends that the district court proeedurally erred at sentencing by: 1) treating the Guidelines as mandatory; 2) failing to consider imposing a sentence outside the Guidelines range in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and 3) failing to adequately explain the sentence imposed. He further contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not proeedurally 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 at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.

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