Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar William CARRILLO-TURCIOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-24
Citations: 265 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 07-50134
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Oscar William CARRILLO-TURCIOS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Oscar William CARRILLO-TURCIOS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-50134.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Curtis A. Kin, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Michael Tanaka, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oscar William Carrillo-Turcios appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Carrillo-Turcios contends that the district court erred when it found that he had maintained continuous physical presence in the United States between May 2001 and August 2006, and that his 1992 and 1993 convictions could therefore be considered in calculating the proper criminal history category. We disagree. The Government submitted a significant amount of evidence, all of it undisputed, that Carrillo-Tureios remained in the United States for the entirety of the period in question. Because, we are not left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed," we conclude that the district court did not clearly err. See Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.