Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto GARCIA-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Nelih Alexis Miranda, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-19
Citations: 688 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 16-10169
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto GARCIA-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Nelih Alexis Miranda, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 434–434

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto GARCIA-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Nelih Alexis Miranda, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10169
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 19, 2017
Lauren G. LaBuff, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU — Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Ricardo Bours, Ricardo Bours Attorney at Law, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Alberto Garcia-Jimenez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.,
Garcia-Jimenez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately, and by relying on unsupported facts regarding a prior conviction. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court sufficiently explained its determination to depart upwards under the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 and impose an above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 620 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, Garcia-Jimenez has not shown that the district court relied on any clearly erroneous fact. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1103 (9th Cir. 2013).
Garcia-Jimenez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Garcia-Jimenez's sentence. 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 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Garcia-Jimenez's serious criminal history. See Gall, 652 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.