Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Manuel ARECHIGA-GIL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-28
Citations: 265 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 07-30135
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Manuel ARECHIGA-GIL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Manuel ARECHIGA-GIL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-30135.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 28, 2008.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Jill Otake, Esq., USSE—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter Joseph Avenía, Esq., FPDWA— Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Manuel Arechiga-Gil appeals from the BO-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful entry by eluding examination and inspection by immigration officers in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court.
Arechiga-Gil contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court refused to grant fast-track reductions, creating an unwarranted sentencing disparity between him and other defendants with similar records in the Western District of Washington. We conclude that Arechiga-Gil's sentence is not unreasonable in light of the district court's consideration of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597-98, 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.