Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier HERNANDEZ-PEREZ, a.k.a. Ricardo Jimenez Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-18
Citations: 473 F. App'x 584
Docket Number: No. 10-10582
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier HERNANDEZ-PEREZ, a.k.a. Ricardo Jimenez Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 584–585

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier HERNANDEZ-PEREZ, a.k.a. Ricardo Jimenez Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10582.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 18, 2012.
Karla Delord, Assistant U.S., USPXOffice of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel L. Kaplan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants Appellant.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Javier Hernandez-Perez appeals from the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 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.
Hernandez-Perez contends that the district court failed to recognize its authority to reject the illegal reentry Guideline's prior-conviction sentencing enhancement on policy grounds. The record belies this contention. The district court considered Hernandez-Perez's policy and other mitigation arguments, recognized that the Guidelines are advisory, imposed a sentence that was 24 months below the advisory Guidelines range, and found the circumstances insufficient to justify a shorter sentence. See United States v. Ayala-Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 752-53 (9th Cir. 2011).
Hernandez-Perez's contention that his prior conviction for making a criminal threat, in violation of section 422 of the California Penal Code, is not categorically a crime of violence is foreclosed. See United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir.2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.