Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardo MARTINEZ-OCAMPO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-17
Citations: 414 F. App'x 971
Docket Number: No. 10-50104
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardo MARTINEZ-OCAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 971–972

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardo MARTINEZ-OCAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50104.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 17, 2011.
Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, Sara J. O’Connell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael S. Berg, Law Offices of Michael S. Berg, San Diego, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Bernardo Martinez-Ocampo appeals from the 57-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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Martinez-Ocampo contends that the district court procedurally erred in imposing his low-end Guideline sentence and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.