Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel ROMO-ROMO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-01
Citations: 328 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 06-50316
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel ROMO-ROMO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 430–430

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel ROMO-ROMO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50316.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 1, 2009.
Andrew George Schopler, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Victor M. Torres, Esquire, Law Office of Victor Manuel Torres, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel .unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Romo-Romo appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Romo-Romo contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court's failure to consider the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and his mitigating factors resulted in a mandatory application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We conclude that Romo-Romo's sentence is procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1002 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.