Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Octavio QUINTERO-VALENZUELA, a.k.a. Jose Quintero, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-31
Citations: 286 F. App'x 468
Docket Number: No. 07-10523
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Octavio QUINTERO-VALENZUELA, a.k.a. Jose Quintero, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 468–469

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Octavio QUINTERO-VALENZUELA, a.k.a. Jose Quintero, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10523.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed July 31, 2008.
Shelley KG. Clemens, Esq., USTU— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Francisco Leon, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, 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 Octavio Quintero-Valenzuela appeals from his 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Quintero-Valenzuela contends that the district court erred by presuming the sen tencing guidelines to be reasonable and by-failing to make an individualized assessment under the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 8558(a)' or provide a reasoned explanation for the sentence imposed. He also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We conclude that Quintero-Valenzuela has not shown that the district court procedurally erred or that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 598-602, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.