Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Esperanza CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-02
Citations: 394 F. App'x 403
Docket Number: No. 09-50158
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Esperanza CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 394
Pages: 403–403

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Esperanza CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50158.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
Filed Sept. 2, 2010.
Steve Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frederick Carroll, Law Offices of Frederick M. Carroll, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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
Ramon Esperanza Carrillo appeals from the 27-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.
Carrillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by not responding to his non-frivolous arguments in mitigation. The record reflects that the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including Carrillo's arguments in mitigation, before concluding that the circumstances were insufficient to warrant a sentence below the one imposed. The district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Carrillo also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances/the district court's within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.