Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelo Rivera IBARRA, a.k.a. Manuel Delgado-Hugo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-23
Citations: 468 F. App'x 797
Docket Number: No. 11-50077
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelo Rivera IBARRA, a.k.a. Manuel Delgado-Hugo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 797–798

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelo Rivera IBARRA, a.k.a. Manuel Delgado-Hugo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 23, 2012.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Jay Howard Robinson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elizabeth Newman, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Marcelo Rivera Ibarra appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United Stated following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ibarra contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to appreciate its discretion to vary from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range on policy grounds and by failing to explain why it rejected his policy arguments concerning U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A). The record belies these contentions. The court considered Ibarra's arguments and explained the sentence sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Ibarra further contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the asserted deficiencies in section 2L1.2(b) and other sentencing factors. We consider policy arguments like Ibarra's within the context of consideration of the reasonableness of the final sentence. See United States v. Barsumyan, 517 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir.2008). The record reflects that Ibarra's sentence, ten months below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.