Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sebastian RODRIGUEZ-CARRILLO, aka: Alberto Rosas-Juarez Jose Reyes, Jose Herrera, Miguel Angel Solorzano, Jose Roberto Rosas, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-02
Citations: 276 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 07-30376
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sebastian RODRIGUEZ-CARRILLO, aka: Alberto Rosas-Juarez Jose Reyes, Jose Herrera, Miguel Angel Solorzano, Jose Roberto Rosas, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sebastian RODRIGUEZ-CARRILLO, aka: Alberto Rosas-Juarez Jose Reyes, Jose Herrera, Miguel Angel Solorzano, Jose Roberto Rosas, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-30376.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed May 2, 2008.
Rafael M. Gonzalez, Jr., Esq., Alan G. Burrow, USBO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert K. Schwarz, Federal Defenders of Idaho Inc., Boise, ID, for Defendant Appellant.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sebastian Rodriguez-Carrillo appeals from his 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rodriguez-Carrillo contends that the district court disregarded the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 598-599, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Rodriguez-Carrillo also contends that his sentence is unreasonable in that it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals set forth under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See id. at 600-602; see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.