Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelo HERNANDEZ-ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-20
Citations: 479 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: Nos. 11-30306, 11-30308
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelo HERNANDEZ-ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelo HERNANDEZ-ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 11-30306, 11-30308.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 20, 2012.
Ryan Wesley Bounds, Assistant U.S., Thomas H. Edmonds, Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kelly R. Beckley, Beckley Law Firm, P.C., Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. 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
In these consolidated appeals, Marcelo Hernandez-Rojas appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the 24-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm but remand to the district court to correct a clerical error in the judgment in case number 11-30306.
Hernandez-Rojas contends that the district court procedurally erred by placing undue emphasis on the Sentencing Guidelines, and by failing adequately to consider his mitigating arguments. The district court listened to Hernandez-Rojas's mitigating arguments, heard testimony from an expert witness, and then granted a ten-level variance below the advisory Guidelines range. The court did not procedurally err.
Hernandez-Rojas also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence imposed, including the 24-month consecutive revocation sentence, is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
We remand to the district court with instructions to amend the judgment in case number 11-30306 to delete the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1) and replace it with 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment in case number 11-30306.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.