Case ID: f-appx_459/html/0590-01.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. Gilberto SANCHEZ-MONTANO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 8, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 8, 2011.
    
      Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, 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

Gilberto Sanchez-Montano appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 48-month sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sanchez-Montano contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to account for the staleness of his prior felony conviction that triggered a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A). This contention lacks merit. The record reflects that the district court considered the age of the conviction, in conjunction with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, prior to granting a downward variance from the adjusted Guidelines range. The sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Sanchez-Montano’s contention that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the admission of a warrant of removal is foreclosed. See United States v. Orozco-Acosta, 607 F.3d 1156, 1164 (9th Cir.2010).

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