Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan-Manuel GUTIERREZ-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-27
Citations: 467 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 11-10126
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan-Manuel GUTIERREZ-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan-Manuel GUTIERREZ-PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10126.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 27, 2012.
Ann L. Demarais, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Robert Kilbum, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendanb-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Juan-Manuel Gutierrez-Pineda appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his 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.
Gutierrez-Pineda contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to appreciate its discretion, under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), to deviate from the advisory sentencing Guidelines based on policy differences with the Guidelines, and by failing to adequately address Gutierrez-Pineda's objections to the sixteen-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A). These contentions are belied by the record.
Gutierrez-Pineda also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable under United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2009), because the sentence does not adequately account for the age of his prior convictions, his individual circumstances, and an amendment to the Guidelines that had not yet been adopted. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 917-18 (9th Cir.2011) (district court not required to consider Guidelines amendment that has been promulgated but not yet adopted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.