Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MARIA-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-10
Citations: 383 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 09-10235
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MARIA-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 604–604

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MARIA-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10235.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 10, 2010.
Michael D. Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Rachelle Barbour, Esquire, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Jose Maria-Juarez appeals from the 70-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(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.
Maria-Juarez contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by (1) refusing to consider imposing a lower sentence in order to achieve paxity with fast-track defendants; (2) treating the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory; and (3) failing to adequately explain the sentence. The record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 739-41 (9th Cir.2009).
Maria-Juarez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances and the age of the prior conviction that was the basis for a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). The record reflects that the 70-month sentence is substantively x'easonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2009).
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand with instructions that the distxict court delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding to delete the reference to § 1326(b) because it is a sentence enhancement and not a separate punishable offense).
Maria-Juarez's motion for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.