Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel TORRES-BOBADILLA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-02
Citations: 450 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 10-50356
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel TORRES-BOBADILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 450
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel TORRES-BOBADILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50356.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 31, 2011.
Filed Sept. 2, 2011.
Aaron B. Clark, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Lewis Merriman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
David James Zugman, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Jose Torres-Bobadilla argues that his indictment was insufficient. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), an indictment must be a "plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." A legally sufficient indictment is one that "state[s] the elements of the offense charged with sufficient clarity to apprise a defendant of the charge against which he must defend and to enable him to plead double jeopardy." United States v. Hinton, 222 F.3d 664, 672 (9th Cir.2000). When "read in its entirety and construed in accord with common sense," United States v. Alber, 56 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir.1995), the indictment in this case put the appellant on notice of the offense charged and was not fairly interpretable in the disjunctive. Accordingly, the indictment was legally sufficient.
The appellant also argues that his seventy-month prison sentence was substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a within-Guidelines sentence that was amply justified by the factors listed at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in light of the appellant's criminal record and recent frequent reentries. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). All of the appellant's contentions to the contrary are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.