Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Natividad MEDINA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-30
Citations: 333 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 08-10358
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Natividad MEDINA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 271–271

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Natividad MEDINA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10358.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009 .
Filed Sept. 30, 2009.
Elizabeth A. Olson, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael K. Powell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Natividad Medina-Martinez appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry by a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Medina-Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by: (1) failing to consider all of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (2) failing to adequately explain the sentence. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
As Medina-Martinez concedes, his argument that the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by increasing his sentence beyond two years is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Beltran-Munguia, 489 F.3d 1042, 1052 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.