Case ID: f-appx_675/html/0763-01.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. Ocario ROMERO-HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Ocario Hernandez, a.k.a. Ocario Hernandez-Romero, a.k.a. Ocario Romero, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30042
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 24, 2017
    
      Raymond Edward Patricco, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Mark J. Ackley, Federal Defender Services of Idaho, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ocario Romero-Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-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. § 1826. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Romero-Hernandez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He argues that the application of the 16-level enhancement to his base offense level was unduly harsh in light of the nature of his prior drug offense and his personal characteristics. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Romero-Hernandez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Romero-Hernandez’s criminal history and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.