Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cayetano Enrique AYALA-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-19
Citations: 444 F. App'x 117
Docket Number: No. 10-50157
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cayetano Enrique AYALA-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cayetano Enrique AYALA-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50157.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 19, 2011.
George Manahan, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James M. Chavez, Esquire, Trial, James M. Chavez, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Cayetano Enrique Ayala-Cruz appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his 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.
Ayala-Cruz contends that the district court erred at sentencing because it misunderstood the determinative facts of United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2009). Ayala-Cruz has not demonstrated that this alleged error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).
Ayala-Cruz also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable under Amezcua-Vasquez because the sentence does not adequately account for the age of his prior convictions and his individual circumstances. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Amezcuar-Vas-quez, 567 F.3d at 1057-58.
Ayala-Cruz further contends that his sentence violates his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights because it was based on facts found by the judge in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He raises this claim solely to preserve the argument on appeal; as he acknowledges, the claim is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.