Case ID: f-appx_383/html/0596-01.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. Josue Daniel DE PAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50393.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 10, 2010.
    George Manahan, Esquire, 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: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Josué Daniel De Paz appeals from the 51-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.

De Paz contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) imposing a sen-fence based solely on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, and (2) failing to adequately explain his sentence. The record reflects that the district court provided a reasoned sentencing explanation and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009).

De Paz also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his over-represented criminal history and other mitigating circumstances. The record reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, De Paz’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 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.