Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Osualdo Ledesma LEDESMA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-01
Citations: 284 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 07-50322
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Osualdo Ledesma LEDESMA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 415–415

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Osualdo Ledesma LEDESMA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50322.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 1, 2008.
Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Rodin Rooyani, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gail Ivens, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel Osualdo Ledesma Ledesma appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ledesma contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his arguments in support of a lower sentence. He also contends that the district court wrongly applied the appellate standard of reasonableness in determining the sentence under the Guidelines. These contentions are belied by the record. The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and made an individualized assessment that a 77-month sentence was appropriate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, to the extent that the district court did not explicitly address every argument for a lower sentence raised by Ledesma, the record indicates that it considered the parties' arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its discretion. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.