Case ID: f-appx_452/html/0734-01.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. Rodolfo DOMINGUEZ-SOSA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-10552.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2011.
    Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., An Mai Nguyen, Special Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorneys Office, 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: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, 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

Rodolfo Dominguez-Sosa 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.

Dominguez-Sosa contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to impose a lower sentence in light of his limited criminal history and his cultural and family ties to the United States. The record reflects that the district court considered Dominguez-Sosa’s arguments and found that they were insufficient to impose a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) sentencing factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. 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.