Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0685-01.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. Oscar JIMENEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-10393.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 12, 2012.
    Melanie McGhee, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ramiro Flores, Jr., Flores & Haywood, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Jimenez-Lopez appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jimenez-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and we find none. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (“[Ajdequate explanation in some cases may ... be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”).

Jimenez-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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