Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose RICO-CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-22
Citations: 389 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 09-50355
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose RICO-CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 631–632

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose RICO-CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50355.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 22, 2010.
Luella M. Caldito, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leila Wylie Morgan, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Jose Rico-Carrillo appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and making a false claim to United States citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rico-Carillo contends that the district court proeedurally erred at sentencing by failing to explicitly address his argument that the 16-level crime of violence enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines reflects unsound policy by the Sentencing Commission because it is not tied by empirical research to any factor relevant to sentencing. The record reflects that the district court considered Rico-Carrillo's arguments and did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (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.