Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan GARCIA-PEREZ, aka Manual Antonio Valencia, Juan Ramon Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-04
Citations: 298 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 07-30409
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan GARCIA-PEREZ, aka Manual Antonio Valencia, Juan Ramon Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan GARCIA-PEREZ, aka Manual Antonio Valencia, Juan Ramon Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30409.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
Elizabeth A. Horsman, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Garcia-Perez appeals from the 41- month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gareia-Perez contends that his sentence is unreasonable because it overstates his conduct of conviction and double counts his criminal history. We conclude that Garcia-Perez's sentence is not procedurally or substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993-94 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Zavala v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2491, 171 L.Ed.2d 780 (2008); United States v. Lunar-Herrera, 149 F.3d 1054, 1055-56 (9th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.