Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe GOMEZ-PARRA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-28
Citations: 606 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 14-10249
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe GOMEZ-PARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 341–342

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe GOMEZ-PARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10249.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 17, 2015.
Filed May 28, 2015.
Camille W. Damm, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Amy B. Cleary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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
Jose Gomez-Parra appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gomez-Parra contends that the 57-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review 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 district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 57-month sentence. The sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including not only Gomez-Parra's cultural and family ties, but his criminal history. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.