Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erwin ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-14
Citations: 478 F. App'x 473
Docket Number: No. 11-10622
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erwin ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erwin ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10622.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 14, 2012.
Amy Elizabeth Peery, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant>-Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Erwin Alvarado appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Alvarado contends that the district court erred by not sua sponte granting him a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. He argues that the reason cited by the government for refusing to make the motion for the reduction, that he reserved his right to appeal, is an impermissible reason under U.S.S.G. § 3E 1.1(b). As Alvarado concedes, this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 1002 (9th Cir.2009), where we held that the expenditure of resources in anticipating and preparing for an appeal is an appropriate consideration under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b). '
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.