Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier MORALES-GALVEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-03
Citations: 474 F. App'x 542
Docket Number: No. 11-50339
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier MORALES-GALVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 542–542

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier MORALES-GALVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50339.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 3, 2012.
Christopher Seth Askins, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Zandra Luz Lopez, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Javier Morales-Galvez appeals from the 84-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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Morales-Galvez contends that the district court erred because it did not rule on the sufficiency of the government's rationale for refusing to make a motion for a third point for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b). The district court did not err because the record reflects that the government's reason was not improper. See United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 1002 (9th Cir.2009) ("[T]he allocation and expenditure of pros-ecutorial resources for the purposes of defending an appeal is a rational basis for declining to move for the third reduction point.").
We decline Morales-Galvez's request that we call for en banc review to reconsider Johnson.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.