Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique ORTUNO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-25
Citations: 632 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 15-50142
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique ORTUNO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 357–358

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique ORTUNO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50142.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 25, 2016.
Stacey Falkoff, Peter KO, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendanb-Ap-pellant.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Enrique Ortuno-Ortiz appeals the 14-month custodial sentence and the one-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for improper entry by an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ortuno-Ortiz argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately. He asserts that the court failed to cite any reasons for the upward variance, erroneously paraphrased the presentence report, and did not address his non-frivolous mitigating arguments. We review for'plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Ortuno-Ortiz's sentencing arguments, but believed that an upward variance to 14 months was warranted in light of Ortuno-Ortiz's three prior immigration convictions and the length of the sentences imposed in those cases. Its explanation was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Ortuno-Ortiz also contends that his custodial sentence and supervised release term are substantively unreasonable in light of his motive for reentry and status as a deportable alien. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, including Ortuno-Ortiz's criminal history. See id.; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5 (supervised release for deportable alien is appropriate if it would provide added deterrence and protection).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.