Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucio Rivera PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-26
Citations: 372 F. App'x 736
Docket Number: No. 09-50123
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucio Rivera PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 736–736

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucio Rivera PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50123.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 26, 2010.
Max Shiner, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Lucio Rivera Perez appeals from his 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Perez contends that the district court procedurally erred by, among other things, failing to address his mitigation arguments that he did not know that the firearm he possessed had an obliterated serial number, and that his criminality was caused by his alcoholism. He also contends that the district court did not adequately justify his above-Guidelines sentence. The record reflects that the district court listened to the parties' arguments and that it adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009).
Perez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record further reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, Perez's sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.