Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo DORANTES-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-23
Citations: 203 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 05-50742
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo DORANTES-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAYY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo DORANTES-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50742.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.
Filed Oct. 23, 2006.
US Attorneys Office, USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frank M. Murphy, III, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Lorenzo Dorantes-Mendoza, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Before: LEAYY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lorenzo Dorantes-Mendoza appeals from the 57-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. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Dorantes-Mendoza contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to appropriately consider the need to avoid unwarranted disparity in sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly considered the advisory Guidelines and the § 3553 factors in imposing the sentence. The record reflects that the district court considered Do-rantes-Mendoza's history and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the kinds of sentences available, and Dorantes-Mendoza's ties to the United States, and imposed a sentence that was sufficient but no greater than necessary to comply with § 3553(a). See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.2006).
We reject Dorantes-Mendoza's contention that disparity between his sentence and fast-track sentences imposed on other illegal reentry defendants rendered his sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 718-19 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding that the disparity between fast-track sentences and non-fast-track sentences is not unwarranted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.