Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben PEREZ-CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-27
Citations: 464 F. App'x 575
Docket Number: No. 11-10150
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben PEREZ-CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 575–576

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben PEREZ-CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10150.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 27, 2011.
Ryan P. Dejoe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Myrna R. Beards, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Ruben Perez-Cardenas appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Perez-Cardenas contends that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to consider his arguments for a lesser sentence. The record belies Perez-Cardenas's contention. The district court listened to his arguments and rejected them. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Accordingly, the district court did not commit plain error. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Perez-Cardenas also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence at the low-end of the Guidelines range was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Finally, Perez-Cardenas concedes that his contention that his prior conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is not a crime of violence subject to a sixteen-level enhancement is foreclosed by United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.