Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben RAMIREZ-GAMIZ, aka Ruben Ramirez-Gamez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-27
Citations: 272 F. App'x 573
Docket Number: No. 06-10454
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben RAMIREZ-GAMIZ, aka Ruben Ramirez-Gamez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben RAMIREZ-GAMIZ, aka Ruben Ramirez-Gamez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10454.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 27, 2008.
Bruce M. Ferg, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini, U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Greta Vietor, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ruben Ramirezr-Gamiz appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted re-en try after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ramirez-Gamiz contends that the district court erred at sentencing by: (i) double-counting his criminal history; (ii) failing to consider the mitigating factors he presented; and (iii) failing to explain why those mitigating factors did not warrant a below-Guidelines sentence. We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error and that Ramirez-Gamiz's sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 598-600, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Rita v. United States, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); see also United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (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.