Case ID: f-appx_477/html/0460-01.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. Jose Luis MENDOZA-NARANJO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50487.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed June 29, 2012.
    Caroline Han, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kathryn A. Thickstun, Law Offices of Kathryn Thickstun Leff, San Diego, CA, 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

Jose Luis Mendoza-Naranjo appeals from the two-year 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.

Mendoza-Naranjo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the Sentencing Guidelines, failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and not adequately explaining the basis for its upward variance from the Guidelines range. The record belies these contentions. The district court considered the Guidelines and the section 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Mendoza-Naranjo also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of section 3553(a). The sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 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.