Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario MARIN-PALAFOX, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-26
Citations: 256 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 07-50053
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mario MARIN-PALAFOX, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mario MARIN-PALAFOX, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-50053.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007 .
Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
USSD—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alex Landon, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Marin-Palafox appeals from the 70-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. We affirm the sentence and remand to correct the judgment.
We reject Marin-Palafox's contention that disparity between his non-fast-track sentence and the fast-track sentences imposed on other defendants in the Southern District of California 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). We conclude that Marin-Palafox's sentence was not unreasonable. See 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).
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1826(b). See United States v. Herrera-Bianco, 282 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.