Case ID: f-appx_373/html/0681-01.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. Ernesto SOTO-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10535.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed April 1, 2010.
    Anca Iulia Pop, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Daniel Jesse Smith, Esquire, Law Office of D. Jesse Smith, Tucson, AZ, for Defen-danb-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ernesto Soto-Herrera appeals from the 56-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Soto-Herrera contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the mitigating circumstances presented. He also contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record indicates that the district court considered the defense’s arguments in the course of determining Soto-Herrera’s sentence and therefore did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Further, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court’s sentence below the middle of the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

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