Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador De Jesus SANCHEZ-MIRANDA, 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 780
Docket Number: No. 10-50315
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Salvador De Jesus SANCHEZ-MIRANDA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 780–780

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Salvador De Jesus SANCHEZ-MIRANDA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-50315.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
Charlotte E. Kaiser, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Janice M. Deaton, Law Offices of Janice Deaton, 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
Salvador de Jesus Sanchez-Miranda appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sanchez-Miranda contends that his below-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to grant a downward departure based on his cultural assimilation and reasons for reentering the United States. The record reflects that the district court considered Sanchez-Miranda's cultural assimilation and motivations for reentering, and imposed a sentence that 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, 51-52, 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.