Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Federico ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-27
Citations: 464 F. App'x 574
Docket Number: No. 10-30341
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Federico ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 574–575

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Federico ROMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30341.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 27, 2011.
Ryan Wesley Bounds, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of The U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Harold P. Ducloux, III, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Federico Roman appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Roman contends that remand is required because it is unclear whether the district court recognized its discretion to vary from U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 on policy grounds. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir.2011). The record belies this contention. The district court considered Roman's policy-based arguments, but did not find them persuasive. See id. ("[District courts are not obligated to vary from the . Guidelines on policy grounds if they do not have, in fact, a policy disagreement with them.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.