Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar Francisco RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Omar Francisco Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-16
Citations: 421 F. App'x 774
Docket Number: No. 10-10153
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar Francisco RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Omar Francisco Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 774–774

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar Francisco RODRIGUEZ-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Omar Francisco Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10153.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 16, 2011.
Liza M. Granoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph A. Duarte, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, 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
Omar Francisco Rodriguez-Jimenez appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rodriguez-Jimenez contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable and failed to give adequate consideration to the all of the relevant circumstances, including the fact that he returned to the United States only to be present for the birth of his second child. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Rodriguez-Jimenez's criminal and disciplinary history, the 51-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable. 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, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.