Case ID: f-appx_455/html/0780-02.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. Elias TORRES, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-50483.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Steve Miller, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Karyn H. Bu-cur Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elias Torres appeals from the 57-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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Torres contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable due to the staleness of his prior felony conviction that triggered a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A). We review for plain error. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2009). The district court did not plainly err, as the record reflects that it considered Torres’ argument in this regard, and accounted for the age of the prior conviction by reducing his criminal history category from AH to V, and by granting a two-level downward departure based on a combination of factors. See United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1054-56 (9th Cir.2009). The sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 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.