Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo VILLASENOR-BOTELLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 419 F. App'x 724
Docket Number: No. 10-30100
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gustavo VILLASENOR-BOTELLO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 724–725

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gustavo VILLASENOR-BOTELLO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-30100.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 8, 2011.
Alexander C. Ekstrom, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca Louise Pennell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gustavo Villasenor-Botello appeals from the 76-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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Villasenor-Botello contends that the sentence imposed was greater than necessary to accomplish the statutory purposes of sentencing. The record reflects that the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors before concluding that the circumstances were insufficient to warrant a sentence below the one imposed. Villasenor-Botel-lo's sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United, States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586,169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Villasenor-Botello acknowledges that his contention that the district court erroneously imposed a sentence above the statutory maximum is foreclosed, but raises it to preserve the issue for potential future review. See United States v. Bolanos-Hemandez, 492 F.3d 1140, 1148 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.