Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Misael AMAYA-PORTILLO, AKA Francisco Amaya-Portillo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-19
Citations: 668 F. App'x 823
Docket Number: No. 15-10533
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Misael AMAYA-PORTILLO, AKA Francisco Amaya-Portillo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 823–824

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Misael AMAYA-PORTILLO, AKA Francisco Amaya-Portillo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10533
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 12, 2016 San Francisco, California
Filed September 19, 2016
William G. Voit, Attorney, USPX — Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas M. Hoidal, Esquire, Law Office of Thomas M. Hoidal, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, 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
After Francisco Amaya-Portillo pleaded guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), the district court sentenced him to 18-months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm the sentence.
Amaya-Portillo's sole claim on appeal is that the government breached the plea agreement he had entered into by implicitly arguing for a harsher sentence than the agreement allowed. We disagree. While the government could have recommended the agreed-upon sentence more enthusiastically, it had no obligation to do that. See United, States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, the government recommended the proper sentence, gave reasons to support it, and addressed likely objections. This is all the agreement reasonably demanded.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,