Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador Arellano MARTINEZ, aka Salvador Martinez Arellano, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-20
Citations: 502 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 12-50012
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador Arellano MARTINEZ, aka Salvador Martinez Arellano, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 502
Pages: 684–684

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador Arellano MARTINEZ, aka Salvador Martinez Arellano, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50012.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 4, 2012.
Filed Dec. 20, 2012.
Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carlton Gunn, Esquire, Kaye McLane & Bednarski, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defen-danL-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The facts are known to the parties. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We review for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Crowe, 563 F.3d 969, 977 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.
The defendant argues that the district court misinterpreted the cultural assimilation departure provision, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, application note 8, when it issued a 35-month sentence to his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) for illegally reentering the United States. Defendant supposes the misinterpretation occurred when the district court failed to distinguish ordinary from culturally motivated economic incentives. However, the 35-month sentence is 11-months below the undisputed guideline range of 46 to 57 months. To reach the 35-month sentence, the district court accepted the defendant's argument as to the applicability of the cultural assimilation departure provision. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record that the district court abused its discretion in failing to distinguish ordinary from culturally motivated economic incentives.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.