Case ID: f-appx_478/html/0399-01.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. Oliverio ARELLANO-AVILES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10488.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 3, 2012.
    Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Todd M. Leventhal, Esquire, Special Counsel, Leventhal and Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oliverio Arellano-Aviles appeals from the 38-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Arellano-Aviles contends that the district court procedurally erred when it failed to explain adequately why it rejected his arguments for a more lenient sentence based on the minor nature of his aggravated felony conviction. The record belies his contention. The district court considered Arellano-Aviles’s mitigating arguments and adequately explained that in light of his criminal history, a sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range was warranted. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, Arel-lano-Aviles’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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