Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Serafin RAMIREZ-DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-04
Citations: 364 F. App'x 320
Docket Number: No. 09-30147
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Serafin RAMIREZ-DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 364
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Serafin RAMIREZ-DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30147.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 4, 2010.
Jane Hawkins Shoemaker, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ellen C. Pitcher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Jose Serafín Ramirez-De La Cruz appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.
Ramirez-De La Cruz contends that his sentence is unreasonable because: (1) it is based on a 16-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A), which is an inherently flawed Guideline; (2) application of the 16-level enhancement resulted in a Guidelines' range that was greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing; (3) the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors; and (4) the district court failed to consider his argument regarding the 16-level increase and his argument in favor of a departure based on assimilation. The record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err and that Ramirez-De La Cruz's sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1054-58 (9th Cir.2009).
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.