Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel SALINAS-VARGAS, a.k.a. Juan Sanchez-Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-28
Citations: 265 F. App'x 616
Docket Number: No. 06-50512
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel SALINAS-VARGAS, a.k.a. Juan Sanchez-Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 616–617

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel SALINAS-VARGAS, a.k.a. Juan Sanchez-Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50512.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 28, 2008.
Annalou T. Tirol, Esq., USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Stewart M. Young, Esq., U.S. Attorneys Office Southern District of California Criminal Division, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Inge Brauer, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel Salinas-Vargas appeals from the 70-month prison sentence imposed follow ing 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.
Salinas-Vargas contends his sentence is unreasonable because the record fails to demonstrate, either explicitly or implicitly, the district court's consideration of all the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the appropriate factors and that the sentence was not unreasonable. See Rita v. United States, -U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); see also Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (explaining that appellate courts review for an abuse of discretion when determining whether a sentence is reasonable).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.