Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro BRISENO-MARIN, a.k.a. Juan Lopez-Lopez, a.k.a. Sergio Marin-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-17
Citations: 414 F. App'x 947
Docket Number: No. 10-30174
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro BRISENO-MARIN, a.k.a. Juan Lopez-Lopez, a.k.a. Sergio Marin-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 947–948

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro BRISENO-MARIN, a.k.a. Juan Lopez-Lopez, a.k.a. Sergio Marin-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30174.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 17, 2011.
Pamela Jackson Byerly, USSP—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. 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
Pedro Briseno-Marin appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Briseno-Marin contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) remain cognizant of the guidelines throughout sentencing; and (3) adequately explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United, States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, any such error by the district court did not affect Briseno-Marin's substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).
Briseno-Marin also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The sentence was reasonable in light of Briseno-Marin's continued recidivism, the need for deterrence, and the breach of trust as evidenced by Briseno-Marin's illegal reentry a mere month after his last deportation. See U.S.S.G. Ch.7, Pt. A(3)(b); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.