Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo Alejandro MORALES-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 261 F. App'x 968
Docket Number: No. 07-10103
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo Alejandro MORALES-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 968–969

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo Alejandro MORALES-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10103.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 .
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Daniel G. Bogden, Esq., Robert A. Bork, Esq., Robert L. Ellman, Esq., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rene L. Valladares, Esq., FPDNV-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rodrigo Alejandro Morales-Perez appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed upon remand, following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Morales-Perez contends that the district court erred by conducting a limited resentencing hearing upon remand rather than a full resentencing hearing pursuant to this court's order. We conclude that the district court did not fail to follow this court's order on remand. The district court conducted a resentencing hearing which included allocution by counsel and at which Morales-Perez was present and afforded an opportunity to address the court. See United States v. Perez, 475 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.2007). Because the district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and took into account the relevant sentencing factors, and because the sentence imposed was not unreasonable, we affirm. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1279-80 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1158, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.