Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael FLORES De La Torre, a.k.a. Rafael Flores, a.k.a. Rafael Delatorre Flores, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-17
Citations: 447 F. App'x 851
Docket Number: No. 10-50454
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael FLORES De La Torre, a.k.a. Rafael Flores, a.k.a. Rafael Delatorre Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 851–852

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael FLORES De La Torre, a.k.a. Rafael Flores, a.k.a. Rafael Delatorre Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50454.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
Filed Aug. 17, 2011.
Lily Chiao-I Hsu, Special Assistant U.S, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Davina T. Chen, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, 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
Rafael Flores de la Torre appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Flores contends that the district court procedurally erred when it determined that his motive for reentering the country was not a basis for a lower sentence. This contention lacks merit as the record reflects that the district court considered Flores's motive for reentry as part of its analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, but found the circumstances insufficient to justify a lower sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Flores, citing United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1054-56 (9th Cir.2009), also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable due to the age of his prior felony conviction that triggered a 16-level enhancement. The district court considered Flores's argument in this regard, and reduced his criminal history category from level III to level I after concluding that it was overstated, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a further reduction below the adjusted Guidelines range. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 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. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2010) (emphasizing the limited scope of the holding in Amezcuar-Vasquez).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.