Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-26
Citations: 325 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 08-10484
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 620–620

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10484.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2009.
Filed May 26, 2009.
Ian L. Garriques, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USF—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Eric V. Kersten, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fresno, CA, Robert Warren Rainwater, Esquire, Rainwater Law Group, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, ánd BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joel Solis 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Solis contends that the district court failed to adequately explain its sentence and erred by using a prior sentence as an arbitrary limit on the extent of a variance instead of considering all the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors, provided an adequate explanation of the reasons for the sentence, and imposed a sentence that was not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).