Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salomon GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 390 F. App'x 734
Docket Number: No. 09-50454
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salomon GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 734–734

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salomon GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50454.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
Harold W. Chun, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Holly Hanover, The Law Offices of Holly S. Hanover, Spring Valley, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, 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
Salomon Garcia-Rodriguez appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Garcia-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by neglecting to meaningfully consider and address all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and his request for a downward departure and failing to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence. The record reflects that the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors, provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991—93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Diaz-Argueta, 564 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2009).
Garcia-Rodriguez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances and the minor nature of the prior conviction that was the basis for a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). The record reflects that the 46-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.