Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo BARRON-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-20
Citations: 479 F. App'x 795
Docket Number: No. 12-50156
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo BARRON-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 795–796

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolfo BARRON-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50156.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 2012.
Filed Sept. 20, 2012.
Bruce R. Castetter, Lawrence E. Spong, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Harini P. Raghupathi, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Adolfo Barron-Galvan appeals his conviction for being found in the United States after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and the resulting sentence of 15 months' imprisonment. We affirm.
1. Plain error did not occur when the government lawyer made certain statements at sentencing. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1051 & nn. 5-6 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that we review for plain error whether the government breached its plea obligations when the defendant fails to object at sentencing). The government stood by its recommendation of 60 days' imprisonment. At most, the government's additional comments were ambiguous. Accordingly, any error was not plain. See United States v. Dorsey, 677 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir.2012) (holding that an error is "plain" if it is "clear or obvious").
2. The district court did not commit significant procedural error at sentencing. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (holding that a reviewing court "must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error"). The district court explained its sentence "sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review." United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The district court considered' all the relevant § 3553(a) factors. See id. ("The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.").
3. The sentence was not substantively unreasonable, even if it is not the same sentence that we would have imposed. See United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1086 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc) ("[W]e may not reverse just because we think a different sentence is appropriate." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.