Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lizandro GARCIA-BERMUDEZ, 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 791
Docket Number: No. 10-10158
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lizandro GARCIA-BERMUDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 791–791

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lizandro GARCIA-BERMUDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10158.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 9, 2011.
Cory Michael Picton, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Adam N. Bleier, Law Offices of Adam N. Bleier, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
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
Lizandro Gareia-Bermudez appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gareia-Bermudez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to discuss all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court did not procedurally err by failing to discuss each of the section 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (holding that a sentencing court "need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors"). Furthermore, given the seriousness and age of Garcia-Ber-mudez's prior offense, and in light of the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.