Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lauterio Domingo GERMAN-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Lauterio D. German-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-18
Citations: 648 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: Nos. 15-10045, 15-10046
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lauterio Domingo GERMAN-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Lauterio D. German-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 679–679

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lauterio Domingo GERMAN-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Lauterio D. German-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 15-10045, 15-10046.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2016.
Filed April 18, 2016.
Ryan P. Dejoe, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Saul M. Huerta, The Huerta Law Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Lauterio Domingo German-Sanchez appeals the aggregate 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
German-Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately and respond to his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered German-Sanchez's mitigating arguments and adequately explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.