Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Ramon Prado LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-14
Citations: 508 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 12-10269
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Ramon Prado LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 508
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Ramon Prado LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10269.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
Filed Feb. 14, 2013.
William James Gullotta, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, Suzanne Miles, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ellen Valentik Leonida, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, 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
Juan Ramon Prado Lopez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in' the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm but remand to the district court to correct a clerical error in the judgment.
Prado Lopez contends that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)'s 16-level sentencing enhancement is flawed because it is not based on empirical evidence and because it uses prior convictions in establishing an offense level. This contention fails because this court has recognized that the enhancement reflects Congress's intent to increase penalties for aliens with prior convictions. See United States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 269 F.3d 945, 947-48 (9th Cir.2001).
Prado Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his employment history and community support. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Lopez's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the cireum-stances, including Lopez's criminal history and prior deportations. See id.
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete reference § 1326(b)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.