Case ID: f-appx_401/html/0225-01.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. Napier VALDEZ-BRITO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50288.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 27, 2010.
    Harold W. Chun, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Scott Adam Pactor, Law Offices of Scott Pactor, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Napier Valdez-Brito appeals from his 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valdez-Brito contends that the sentence imposed by the district court was greater than necessary to accomplish the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record reflects that the district court thoroughly considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and provided a well-reasoned explanation for the sentence imposed. The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence was substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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