Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar CASTILLO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-22
Citations: 334 F. App'x 855
Docket Number: No. 08-50567
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar CASTILLO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 855–856

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar CASTILLO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50567.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 22, 2009.
Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Steve Miller, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorneys’ Office, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shaffy Moeel, Kristi A. Hughes, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oscar Castillo-Ramirez appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of illegal aliens and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii), (a)(l)(A)(v)(II). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Castillo-Ramirez contends the district court proeedurally erred by: (1) declining to compare his conduct to similar conduct in other cases; (2) failing to provide sufficient reasons for imposing a sentence six months above the Guidelines range; and (3) relying on clearly erroneous facts. These contentions are belied by the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Castillo-Ramirez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances of this case and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Carty, 520 F.3d at 991-93.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.