Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0859-01.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. Adrianne ESTRADA-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10522.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 1, 2014.
    Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Brandon C. Jaroch, USDA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Dallas, TX, ELizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Nisha Brooks, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adrianne Estrada-Cruz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Estrada-Cruz contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his history and characteristics, and because he was motivated to return to the United States to support his family. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Estrada-Cruz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Estrada-Cruz’s history of drug-related offenses and two prior removals. See id.

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