Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio CALLES-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-01
Citations: 265 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 06-10737
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio CALLES-MEDINA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 684–684

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio CALLES-MEDINA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-10737.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Feb. 1, 2008.
Munish Sharda, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. Deconcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter Eric Herberg, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, 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
Jose Antonio Calles-Medina appeals from his 37-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Calles-Medina contends that the district court erred by granting a 30-day continuance of the sentencing hearing so that the government could submit appropriate documentation to establish an aggravated-felony enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(B). We conclude that the district court did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in granting the continuance. See United States v. Lopez-Patino, 391 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam); cf. United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.