Case ID: f-appx_407/html/0230-01.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. Carlos GONZALEZ-SALMERON, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-10040.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 4, 2011.
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Stephen G. Ralls, Esquire, Law Offices of Stephen G. Ralls, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Gonzalez-Salmeron appeals from the 34-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial 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.

Gonzalez-Salmeron contends that the district court procedurally erred by not adequately considering all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Gonzalez-Salmeron also contends that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court’s sentence within the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See id.

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