Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel VALDOVINOS-ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-21
Citations: 235 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 06-30538
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel Angel VALDOVINOS-ZAMORA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel Angel VALDOVINOS-ZAMORA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-30538.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2007 .
Filed Aug. 21, 2007.
Jacqueline Carr, Southaven, MS, pro se.
Stacy Grove Butler, Chantel Kimble Adams, Kizer, Hood & Morgan, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Angel Valdovinos-Zamora appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence imposed for being found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Valdovinos-Zamora contends the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h), and did not properly consider or explain its reasons for imposing a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range. We conclude there was no plain error, because appellant's sentencing challenge was subject to the "full adversary testing" contemplated by Rule 32(h), and the district court adequately considered the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Evans-Martinez, 448 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir.2006). Moreover, given the record, we cannot say the sentence was unreasonable. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 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.