Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-05
Citations: 445 F. App'x 994
Docket Number: No. 10-10490
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 445
Pages: 994–995

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10490.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
Filed Aug. 5, 2011.
James Elwood McGhee, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrea Lynn Matheson, Andrea L. Matheson-Matheson Law Firm, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Eduardo Hernandez-Hernandez appeals from the 51-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.
Hernandez-Hernandez contends that his below-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court did not discuss all of the 18 U.S.C. § 8553(a) factors at the sentencing hearing. The record reflects that the district court adequately considered and addressed Hernandez-Hernandez's arguments and the section 3553(a) factors. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-58, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Furthermore, in light of the totality of the circumstances, Hernandez-Hernandez's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 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, 994-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.