Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel ISAGUIRES-VARELA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-27
Citations: 455 F. App'x 784
Docket Number: No. 10-50587
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel ISAGUIRES-VARELA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 784–785

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel ISAGUIRES-VARELA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-50587.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
Michael Lewis Merriman, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gary Paul Burcham, Law Offices of Gary P. Burcham, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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
Manuel Isaguires-Varela appeals from the 42-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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Isaguires-Varela contends that the district court procedurally erred by using his two prior sentences for § 1326 convictions as a benchmark in fashioning the instant sentence, and by focusing exclusively on deterrence to the exclusion of other relevant sentencing factors. The record reflects that the district court used the advisory Guidelines range as the starting point and initial benchmark, before determining that a variance above the applicable Guidelines range was appropriate after consideration of several 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-993 (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.