Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos MARTINEZ-AGUINIGA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 361 F. App'x 887
Docket Number: No. 09-50014
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos MARTINEZ-AGUINIGA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos MARTINEZ-AGUINIGA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50014.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Steven D. Desalvo, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Debra Ann Dilorio, Law Office of Debra Dilorio San Diego, CA, 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
Carlos Martinez-Aguiniga appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Martinez-Aguiniga contends that the sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range is substantively unreasonable in light of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and because it is based on a 16-level enhancement he received under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) for a crime of violence he committed 23 years prior to his arrest in the instant case. The record reflects that the district court considered and rejected Martinez-Aguiniga's arguments regarding the staleness of his crime of violence conviction and gave thorough consideration to the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing. Cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2009). Accordingly, and in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.