Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel Lugo BUENO, aka Victor Lugo-Bueno, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-18
Citations: 264 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 06-30273
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel Lugo BUENO, aka Victor Lugo-Bueno, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 264
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel Lugo BUENO, aka Victor Lugo-Bueno, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30273.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 18, 2008.
Pamela Jackson Byerly, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kathleen E. Moran, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Victor Manuel Lugo Bueno appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lugo Bueno contends that the district court did not adequately explain the reasons for the sentence. We disagree. See Rita v. United States, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
We also conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable in light of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (holding that court of appeals reviews sentences for reasonableness in light of § 3553(a) factors); see also Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (explaining that court of appeals is reviewing for abuse of discretion when determining whether a sentence is reasonable).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.