Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael REYES-QUINTERO, a/k/a Rafael Martinez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-31
Citations: 286 F. App'x 480
Docket Number: No. 05-50714
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael REYES-QUINTERO, a/k/a Rafael Martinez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 480–481

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael REYES-QUINTERO, a/k/a Rafael Martinez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50714.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed July 31, 2008.
U.S. Attorney, USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Wendy S. Gerboth, Esq., Law Office of Wendy Gerboth, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS; and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rafael Reyes-Quintero 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, and we affirm.
Reyes-Quintero contends that the district court erred at sentencing by failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and by failing to provide sufficient reasons for the sentence it imposed. He also contends that his sentence is unreasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error and that Reyes-Quintero's sentence is substantively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 600-02, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995-96 (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.