Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anibal DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-21
Citations: 377 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 08-50391
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anibal DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anibal DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50391.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 21, 2010.
Aaron B. Clark, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Wendy Susan Gerboth, Law Office of Wendy Gerboth, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Aníbal Diaz-Rodriguez appeals from the 40-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. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.
Diaz-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by focusing on the need for deterrence and failing to consider all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Diaz-Rodriguez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the age of a prior conviction. The record indicates that the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2009) ("It is unreasonable . to treat a decades-old enhancing conviction as requiring as much deterrence as a recent conviction.") (emphasis added).
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 § 1326(b). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.