Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabino BELLO-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-10
Citations: 269 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 06-50472
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabino BELLO-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabino BELLO-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50472.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
Filed March 10, 2008.
Carlos Arguello, Esq., Roger W. Haines, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason I. Ser, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gabino Bello-Juarez appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and transportation of illegal aliens resulting in death, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (v)(II) and (a)(l)(B)(iv). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bello-Juarez contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court treated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as presumptive and failed to adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) factors. The record discloses that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and had a reasoned basis for exercising its sentencing discretion. See Rita v. United States, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable in light of § 3553(a). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 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.