Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando MORALES-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-21
Citations: 483 F. App'x 372
Docket Number: No. 11-50430
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando MORALES-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 483
Pages: 372–372

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando MORALES-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50430.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 21, 2012.
Scott Michael Lesowitz, Bruce R. Cas-tetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Fernando Morales-Aguilar appeals from the 57-month sentence and 36-month term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Morales-Aguilar contends that the district court erred by relying on improper sentencing factors, failing adequately to explain the sentence, and basing its sentencing decision on impermissible speculation. The district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Morales-Aguilar also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mental health issues and because it overemphasizes the need for deterrence and the need to protect the public. Both the 57-month sentence and the 36-month term of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.