Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel BELTRAN-BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-19
Citations: 404 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 09-30448
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel BELTRAN-BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 114–114

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel BELTRAN-BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30448.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
Filed Nov. 19, 2010.
Kirk Alan Engdall, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bryan E. Lessley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, 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
Joel Beltran-Benitez appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Beltran-Benitez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence imposed. He also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and the below-Guidelines range sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1117-19 (9th Cir.2009) (no procedural error where record reflected that judge considered the evidence and arguments presented by the parties); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-95 (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.