Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio TORRES-CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-29
Citations: 425 F. App'x 587
Docket Number: No. 10-50243
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio TORRES-CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio TORRES-CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50243.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 29, 2011.
Sara J. O’Connell, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Andrew Schlesinger, Esquire, Jacobs Schlesinger Ople & Sheppard LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Antonio Torres-Cortez appeals from the 46-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.
Torres-Cortez contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to adequately justify the sentence imposed and to consider all of the factors set forth under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the staleness of a prior conviction which increased the applicable Guidelines range. He further contends that the resulting sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2'008) (en banc), and that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable, see id. at 993-94.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.