Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rene MONJARAZ-PINTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-23
Citations: 506 F. App'x 546
Docket Number: No. 11-10620
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rene MONJARAZ-PINTO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: NOONAN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 506
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rene MONJARAZ-PINTO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10620.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 18, 2013.
Filed Jan. 23, 2013.
Ryan P. Dejoe, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: NOONAN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Oscar Rene Monjaraz-Pinto appeals his conviction for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and the resulting sentence of 63 months' imprisonment. We affirm.
1. The district court did not err in holding that Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of the affirmative defense of duress. Defendant's fears of poor treatment by police and prison officials were not akin to persecutors who "figuratively held a gun to his head." United States v. Vasquez-Landaver, 527 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2. As Defendant now concedes, the district court correctly applied the 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. United States v. Flores-Mejia, 687 F.3d 1213, 1215-16 (9th Cir.2012); United States v. Bonilla-Montenegro, 331 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.2003).
Defendant's sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.