Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio ALVARADO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 719
Docket Number: No. 06-50365
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio ALVARADO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, LEAYY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 719–719

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio ALVARADO-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50365.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Renee M. Bunker, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
John Owen Lanahan, Esq., Law Offices of John O. Lanahan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAYY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Antonio Alvarado-Torres appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed upon re-sentencing, following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Appellant's September 15, 2006, motion to file a supplemental designation of record to include the reporter's transcript filed in case number 05-50171 is granted.
Alvarado-Torres contends that the district court erred by failing to state its reasons for "increasing" his sentence by nine months between the beginning of the sentencing hearing and its conclusion the following day. We disagree. We conclude that the district court did not "increase" his sentence, took into account the appropriate sentencing factors, and imposed a reasonable sentence. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.