Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan GUERRERO-MELCHOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-11
Citations: 383 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: Nos. 08-10062, 08-10553
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan GUERRERO-MELCHOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan GUERRERO-MELCHOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 08-10062, 08-10553.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 11, 2010.
Lynne Ingram, Assistant U.S., Emory Thomas Hurley, Assistant U.S., Leta M. Hollon, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lynn T. Hamilton, Esquire, Hamilton Law Office, PC, Mesa, AZ, Ivan Guerrero-Melchor, Adelanto, CA, Phillip A. Trevino, Esquire, Law Offices of Phillip A. Trevino, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Ivan Guerrero-Melchor appeals from the 92-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Guerrero-Melchor contends that the district court procedurally erred by treating the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory and by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that the district court was aware of its discretion under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, adequately considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Diaz-Argueta, 564 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.