Case ID: f-appx_275/html/0730-02.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. Benito COHETZALTITLA-PONCE, aka Valentin Aguilar-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito Cohetzaltitla-Ponce, aka Valentin Aguilar-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 07-30178, 07-30244.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2008.
    
    Filed April 29, 2008.
    Shawn N. Anderson, Esq., USYA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristine K. Olmstead, Esq., FDWAID— Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Benito Cohetzaltitla-P once appeals from the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the 18-month sentence imposed consecutively following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cohetzaltitla-Ponce contends that both sentences are unreasonable because the district court failed to properly consider his extensive cultural assimilation. We conclude that the district court considered Cohetzaltitla-Ponce’s cultural assimilation argument and did not commit any procedural error and that the sentences are reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 n. 5 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 986 (9th Cir.2006).

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