Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0071-02.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. Esteban QUEZADA-CRUZ, a.k.a. Esteban Quezada-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10588.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed June 29, 2012.
    An Mai Nguyen, Special Assistant U.S., Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., Adam McMeen Flake, Assistant U.S., Phillip Nelson Smith, Jr., Assistant U.S., USLVO-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, 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

Esteban Quezada-Cruz appeals from the 56-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.

Quezada-Cruz contends that the district court erred procedurally by failing to consider a shorter sentence based on the staleness of his 1999 drug trafficking conviction. The record belies this contention.

Quezada-Cruz also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the prior conviction that increased his offense level was stale. The sentence within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 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.