Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge MACIAS-VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-15
Citations: 624 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 14-50527
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge MACIAS-VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge MACIAS-VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50527.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
Michael J. Heyman, Peter Ko, Assistánt U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Julie A. Blair, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, 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
Jorge Macias-Valdez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 66-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Macias-Valdez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mental and physical health problems, and his alleged cultural assimilation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Macias-Valdez'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 circumstances, including Macias-Valdez's significant criminal and immigration histories. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) ("The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.