Case ID: f-appx_254/html/0674-02.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. Ramon ARCINIEGA-GARCIA, aka Raul Mejia Garcia aka Raul Zapata Gonzalez aka Ignancio Balderanos aka Alberto Aciniega aka Alberto Garcia Arciniega, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-30041.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 22, 2007.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2007.
    Michael S. Lahr, Esq., USHE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Benjamin T. Cory, Esq., Cederberg Law Offices, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramon Arciniega-Garcia appeals from his 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Arciniega-Garcia contends that the district court’s sentence is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and also contends that the district court treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory when it failed to conduct a proper 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis. We disagree. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1158, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

Arciniega-Garcia contends that the disparity between his sentence and the sentences imposed on similarly-situated defendants who are prosecuted in districts with fast-track programs is unwarranted and renders his sentence unreasonable. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 717-19 (9th Cir.2006).

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