Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gaudencio MOLINA-CARBAJAL, a.k.a. Guadencio Molina-Carbajal, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-19
Citations: 474 F. App'x 649
Docket Number: No. 11-10365
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gaudencio MOLINA-CARBAJAL, a.k.a. Guadencio Molina-Carbajal, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 649–649

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gaudencio MOLINA-CARBAJAL, a.k.a. Guadencio Molina-Carbajal, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-10365.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 19, 2012.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael J. Bresnehan, Esquire, Michael J. Bresnehan PC, Tempe, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
Gaudencio Molina-Carbajal appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Molina-Carbajal contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He primarily contends that the district court relied too heavily on the Sentencing Guidelines range and gave insufficient weight to his mitigating arguments. In light of the totality of the circumstances' and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.