Case ID: f-appx_545/html/0706-01.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. Baldomero VALDEZ-CASTENEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2013.
    Donald J. Pashayan, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jerry Matthew Hernandez, Esquire, Trial, Law Office of Jerry Hernandez, Tempe, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Baldomero Valdez-Casteneda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Prior to filing an answering brief, the government filed a motion for limited remand. Because the government does not allege that the district court committed any error, we deny the government’s motion.

Valdez-Casteneda asserts various claims of procedural error. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory, adequately considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and Val-dezr-Casteneda’s variance arguments, and sufficiently explained the sentence to permit appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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