Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian GARCIA-ALCANTAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-30
Citations: 333 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 09-50013
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian GARCIA-ALCANTAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian GARCIA-ALCANTAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50013.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Sept. 30, 2009.
William Allen Hall, Jr., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Hanni Meena Fakhoury, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Adrian Garcia-Aleantar appeals from the $1,000 fine imposed as part of his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for bringing in illegal aliens without presentation, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Garcia-Alcantar contends that the district court erred by imposing the $1,000 fine because he has neither the present nor future ability to pay the fine. The district court did not clearly err in its factual determination that Garcia-Alcantar is able to pay the fine. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1239-40 (9th Cir.2009). Moreover, the district court sufficiently considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 3572(a), adequately explained its decision to impose the fíne, and imposed a reasonable fine. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.