Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barochs ALVARADO-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 390 F. App'x 731
Docket Number: No. 09-50478
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barochs ALVARADO-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 731–732

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barochs ALVARADO-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50478.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
Anne Kristina Perry, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Zandra Luz Lopez, Law Offices of Zan-dra L. Lopez, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, 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
Barochs Alvarado-Moreno appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Alvarado-Moreno contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court placed undue weight on his past convictions. The district court did not procedurally err, and in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1050 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (rejecting double-counting argument in § 1326 appeal).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.