Case ID: f-appx_468/html/0800-01.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. Mario Alberto ALONSO-MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10555.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2012.
    Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., Camille W. Damm, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV-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: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Alberto Alonso-Maldonado appeals from the 46-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.

Alonso-Maldonado contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, in light of the staleness of his prior conviction and his cultural assimilation. Under the totality of the circumstances, including Al-onso-Maldonado’s criminal history and three previous deportations, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

To the extent Alonso-Maldonado contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence, the record belies his contention. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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