Case ID: f-appx_308/html/0146-01.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. Carlos Enrique PORTILLO-QUIROZ, aka Adan Salazar-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50149.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 14, 2009.
    Mark Conover, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joseph McMullen, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Enrique Portillo-Quiroz appeals from the 21-month 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. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Portillo-Quiroz contends that his above-Guidelines range sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not give sufficient weight to the Guidelines range relative to other factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court properly considered the Guidelines range as a factor among all of the § 3553(a) factors, and that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2006).

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanehez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.