Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe CHAVEZ-LIMAS, aka Jose "Pato" Chavez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-09
Citations: 419 F. App'x 792
Docket Number: No. 10-10182
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe CHAVEZ-LIMAS, aka Jose “Pato” Chavez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 792–792

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe CHAVEZ-LIMAS, aka Jose “Pato” Chavez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10182.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 9, 2011.
Rui Wang, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appelleé.
Central Arizona Detention Center, Florence, AZ, Francisco Leon, Esquire, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jose Guadalupe Chavez-Limas, pro se.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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 Guadalupe Chavez-Limas appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Chavez-Limas contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the age of his prior conviction under United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2009). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2010) (emphasizing the limited scope of Amezcuar-Vasquez).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.