Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Serafin HERNANDEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-27
Citations: 455 F. App'x 788
Docket Number: No. 11-50089
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Serafin HERNANDEZ-GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 788–789

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Serafin HERNANDEZ-GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-50089.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
Victor Pablo White, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John R. Fielding, Jr., Law Offices of John R. Fielding, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Serafín Hernandez-Garcia appeals from the 33-month sentence imposed following his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hernandez-Garcia contends that the district court improperly departed upward on the basis of criminal history when calculating his Guidelines range, and that the district court failed to provide the requisite reasoned explanation of the departure. This contention is without merit, where the record shows that district did not procedurally érr and "any deviation from the applicable advisory guidelines range will be viewed as an exercise of the district court's post Booker discretion and reviewed only for reasonableness." See United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 987 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421-22 (9th Cir.2011) (affirming that "it is not necessary to consider whether the district court correctly applied U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 . [but] only whether the defendant's ultimate sentence was reasonable"). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.