Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier SARABIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-09
Citations: 373 F. App'x 781
Docket Number: No. 09-10272
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier SARABIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, BEEZER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 781–782

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier SARABIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10272.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 3, 2010.
Filed April 9, 2010.
Christopher James Lewis, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas E. Higgins, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas E. Higgins Jr., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, BEEZER and HALL, 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
Defendant-appellant Javier Sarabia ("Sarabia") appeals from a final judgment convicting him of one count of illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, as enhanced by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). Sarabia pleaded guilty to the crime without a plea agreement, and the district court sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
I
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir.2009).
II
The district court acted well within its discretion by sentencing Sarabia at the bottom of the applicable advisory guidelines range. The record clearly shows that, during the sentencing hearing, the district court considered Sarabia's individual circumstances and mitigating factors. The fact that the district court did not expressly discuss every 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor does not make the sentence substantively unreasonable because a "district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them." United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.