Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efrain RAZO-MAYA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-27
Citations: 455 F. App'x 789
Docket Number: No. 11-10106
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Efrain RAZO-MAYA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Efrain RAZO-MAYA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-10106.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
An Mai Nguyen, Special Assistant U.S., Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorneys Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Efrain Razo-Maya appeals from the 24- month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Razo-Maya contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he has no prior felony convictions. As Razo-Maya's concedes, his prior gross misdemeanor conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). See United States v. Gonzalez-Tamariz, 310 F.3d 1168, 1170-71 (9th Cir.2002). Thus, the district court did not err in imposing an eight-level sentencing enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.