Case ID: f-appx_332/html/0431-01.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. Alfonso GONZALEZ-CASTANEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10415.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
    
    Filed Aug. 31, 2009.
    Monte Cress Clausen, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Harriette P. Levitt, Esquire, Law Offices of Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfonso Gonzalez-Castaneda appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez-Castaneda contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his reason for reentering, a change in the case law prior to sentencing, and the fact that defendants convicted of the same offense often receive lower sentences. We conclude that the sentence is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597-98, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Gonzalez-Castaneda’s sentence was at the low-end of the sentencing guidelines; he has prior drug convictions and has been deported before; his reason for reentering the country is not compelling; and, his disparity contention lacks merit because Gonzalez-Castaneda is not similarly situated to criminal defendants who receive lower sentences for the conduct at issue here, because he rejected the government’s plea offer.

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