Case ID: f-appx_464/html/0575-01.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. Ruben PEREZ-CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10150.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 27, 2011.
    Ryan P. Dejoe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Myrna R. Beards, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Perez-Cardenas appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez-Cardenas contends that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to consider his arguments for a lesser sentence. The record belies Perez-Cardenas’s contention. The district court listened to his arguments and rejected them. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Accordingly, the district court did not commit plain error. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Perez-Cardenas also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence at the low-end of the Guidelines range was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Finally, Perez-Cardenas concedes that his contention that his prior conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is not a crime of violence subject to a sixteen-level enhancement is foreclosed by United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2009).

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