Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando SANCHEZ-BIRRUETTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-06
Citations: 299 F. App'x 736
Docket Number: No. 06-30107
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Fernando SANCHEZ-BIRRUETTA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 736–737

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Fernando SANCHEZ-BIRRUETTA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-30107.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 6, 2008.
Judith R. Harper, Esq., USME — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Medford, OR, Stephen F. Peifer, Esq., USPO — Office of the U.S. Attorney Mark O. Hatfield, U.S. Courthouse, Portland, OR, for PlaintiffAppellee.
James D. Lang, Esq., Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fernando Sanchez-Birruetta appeals from the 94-month sentence imposed, upon remand, following his jury-trial conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sanchez-Birruetta contends that the district court erroneously applied the Guidelines range as a presumptive sentence, improperly placed the burden on him to prove why a different sentence should be imposed, and misapplied the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) factors. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err, and that the sentence imposed is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Zavala v. United States, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2491, 171 L.Ed.2d 780 (2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.