Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GASTELUM-CAMPA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-16
Citations: 588 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 14-50308
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GASTELUM-CAMPA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 588
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GASTELUM-CAMPA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50308.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
Filed Dec. 16, 2014.
Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S., Joseph Orabona, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castet-ter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Hootan Baigmohammadi, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, 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
Francisco Gastelum-Campa appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for making a false claim to United States citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gastelum-Campa contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed. Specifically, he argues that the district court failed to (1) explain why it rejected his argument that the mitigating factors justified a sentence of time served, (2) explain why the Guidelines range was inadequate, and (3) provide a meaningful justification for the extent of the variance imposed. 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 adequately explained the sentence, including its reasons for rejecting Gastelum-Campa's arguments in support of a within-Guidelines sentence and for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Gastelum-Campa also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). "The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court." United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009). The 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the need to deter and to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.