Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo Antonio CAISHPAL-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-23
Citations: 415 F. App'x 803
Docket Number: No. 10-10239
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo Antonio CAISHPAL-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 803–804

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo Antonio CAISHPAL-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10239.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
Michael D. Anderson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas J. Beevers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defend er’s Office, Fresno, 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
Gerardo Antonio Caishpal-Hernandez appeals from the 70-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.
Caishpal-Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain sufficiently the sentence imposed and to address the arguments he presented for a below-Guidelines sentence. The record reflects that the district court provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence and adequately addressed Caishpal-Hernandez's arguments in mitigation to allow for meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Caishpal-Hernandez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is exceptionally harsh relative to other individuals convicted of illegal reentry and was imposed to discourage reentry defendants from exercising their constitutional rights. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court's sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993-94 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that the district court imposed the sentence as punishment for Caishpal-Hernandez's decision to reject the proposed fast-track plea agreement. See United States v. Vasquez-Landaver, 527 F.3d 798, 805-06 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.