Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo NAVARRO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-30
Citations: 464 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 11-50076
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo NAVARRO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo NAVARRO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50076.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 30, 2011.
Alessandra Serano, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Zandra Luz Lopez, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, 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
Alfredo Navarro-Garcia appeals from the 30-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.
Navarro-Garcia contends that the district court misinterpreted Application Note 8 of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, erroneously depriving him of the cultural assimilation departure. He also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not procedurally err and Navarro-Garcia's low-end Guidelines sentence is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008) ("[W]e consider [Navarro-Garcia's] contention that the district court erred when it denied his motion for a downward departure . to the extent that the denial implicates the overall reasonableness of [his] sentence.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.