Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto SANTANA-MORALES, a.k.a. Ernesto Morales, a.k.a. Jose Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-09
Citations: 471 F. App'x 673
Docket Number: No. 11-50173
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto SANTANA-MORALES, a.k.a. Ernesto Morales, a.k.a. Jose Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 673–673

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto SANTANA-MORALES, a.k.a. Ernesto Morales, a.k.a. Jose Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50173.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 9, 2012.
Meghan A. Blanco, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, AUSAOffice of U.S. Attorney Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Eibert, Esquire, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, 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
Ernesto Santana-Morales appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Santana-Morales contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, because the district court did not depart based on his fast-track guilty plea, cultural assimilation, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. In light of Santana-Morales's extensive criminal history and the need to provide adequate deterrence, Santana-Morales's low-end Guideline sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n. 8; Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.