Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco HARRISON-IBARRA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-28
Citations: 456 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 11-10062
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco HARRISON-IBARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 456
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco HARRISON-IBARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10062.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 28, 2011.
James Elwood McGhee, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jill Elaine Thorpe, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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 Harrison-Ibarra appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Harrison-Ibarra contends that the district court failed to consider his policy-based objections to the 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not procedurally err and Harrison-Ibarra's sentence, 16 months below the bottom of the Guidelines range, is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2010) (affirming application of a 16-level enhancement based on a prior conviction for a crime of violence).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.