Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GALAZ-CHAPARRO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-14
Citations: 480 F. App'x 885
Docket Number: No. 12-10145
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GALAZ-CHAPARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 480
Pages: 885–886

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GALAZ-CHAPARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10145.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 14, 2012.
Matthew Cassell, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Francisco Galaz-Chaparro, pro se.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Francisco Galaz-Chaparro appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Galaz-Chaparro contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his personal situation, his unique characteristics, and the true nature of his nonviolent criminal history. The record reflects that under the totality of the circumstances, including Chaparro's most recent re-entry only four months after his last deportation, the sentence within the Guidelines range is not substantively unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Galaz-Chaparro's motion, filed on August 21, 2012, requesting an extension of time to file his reply brief is granted. The reply brief received on August 21, 2012, is deemed filed.