Case ID: f-appx_315/html/0653-01.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. Ernesto HURTADO-ZEPEDA, aka, Gabriel Hurtado-Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50013.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 2, 2009.
    James M. Left, Esquire, Angela Fonto-va, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kathryn Ann Young, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for De-fendanh-Appellant.
    Before BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ernesto Hurtado-Zepeda appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Hurtado-Zepeda contends that his sentence is unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error and that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1001-02 (9th Cir.2008); see also United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 718-19 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 770-71 (9th Cir.2006).

Hurtado-Zepeda also contends that a condition of supervised release that requires him .to report to the probation office within 72 hours of re-entering the United States violates his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As Hurta-do-Zepeda acknowledges, this contention is foreclosed. See Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d at 772-73.

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.