Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0245-01.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. Fernando Huerta RICO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50700.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 4, 2010.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., Andrew G. Brown, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William C. Melcher, Esq., Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Fernando Huerta Rico, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fernando Huerta Rico appeals from the 84-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.

Rico contends that the district court erred by applying a drug trafficking enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) because two prior felony convictions allegedly occurred when Rico was a juvenile. This contention fails because Rico admitted to having been convicted for the offenses as an adult. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, cmt. n. l(A)(iv); see also United States v. Flores, 172 F.3d 695, 700-01 (9th Cir.1999) (defendant waived challenge by expressly agreeing to enhancement). Even if it was true that the offenses occurred when he was a juvenile, it is undisputed that he agreed that he was prosecuted as an adult.

Rico also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that there was no procedural error and that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence within the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (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.