Case ID: f-appx_333/html/0278-01.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. Martin ALCANTARA-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50061.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2009.
    Fred Sheppard, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.
    Holly Hanover, The Law Offices of Holly S. Hanover, Spring Valley, CA, for Defendant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Alcantara-Castillo appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alcantara-Castillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by not discussing whether a downward departure, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, was appropriate and by not applying the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors to the facts of his case. These contentions are belied by the record. The district court discussed the departure request at the sentencing hearing and engaged in a legally sufficient analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Catty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Alcantara-Castillo also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he did not receive a sentence reduction for saving a woman’s life while traveling to the United States. Alcan-tara-Castillo’s sentence is not unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See id. at 993; see also United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 986-87 (9th Cir.2006).

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