Case ID: f-appx_191/html/0585-01.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. Ruben CASTRO-MURO, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-30075.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Filed July 26, 2006.
    Elizabeth A. Horsman, Esq., Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Evangelo Arvanetes, Esq., Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Castro-Muro appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castro-Muro contends that the sentence imposed by the district court on resentencing was unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We disagree. The record demonstrates that the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors and imposed a reasonable sentence within the Guidelines range. See United States v. Mix, 442 F.3d 1191, 1196-97, amended by 450 F.3d 375 (9th Cir.2006) (“Judges need not rehearse on the record all of the considerations that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) lists; it is enough to calculate the range accurately and explain why (if the sentence lies outside of it) this defendant deserves more or less.”) (internal citation and quotations marks omitted); see also United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

Castro-Muro also contends that unwarranted sentencing disparity resulted from the fact that he was not convicted in a district that employs a fast-track program. This argument has been rejected by United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 717-19 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding that sentencing disparity resulting from some districts using fast-track program was not unwarranted under § 3553(a)(6)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.