Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus REYES-LIZARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-17
Citations: 693 F. App'x 693
Docket Number: Nos. 16-10353, 16-10354
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus REYES-LIZARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.'
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus REYES-LIZARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 16-10353, 16-10354
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 17, 2017
Michael LoGalbo, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Francisco Leon, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Francisco Leon, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Reyes-Lizarraga appeals the 28-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the four-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Reyes-Lizarraga contends that his aggregate sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give sufficient weight to the 2016 amendments to the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which were promulgated but not effective at the time of his sentencing. The record reflects that the court took account of the pending changes to the guideline and granted a significant downward variance. The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a further downward variance was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Reyes-Lizarraga's significant immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 918 (9th Cir. 2011) ("That the Commission has promulgated a not-yet-adopted amendment that is very likely to be adopted and that would result in reduced Guidelines ranges does not render a district court's failure to grant a variance substantively unreasonable.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.