Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Uriel SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-11
Citations: 364 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 09-50058
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Uriel SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 364
Pages: 393–394

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Uriel SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50058.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2010.
Filed Feb. 11, 2010.
Amie Danielle Rooney, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Norma Aide Aguilar, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Uriel Sanchez appeals his above-Guidelines sentence for transportation of illegal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii) and (v)(II). We review for both procedural error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and affirm.
Sanchez's sentence was not based on an impermissible factor. The record demonstrates that the district court considered the proper factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and does not suggest that any impermissible factor affected the sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
The district court "explain[ed the sentence] sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review." Carty, 520 F.3d at 992. Nor did the court err by considering under section 3553(a) the same conduct that had already enhanced the Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (requiring the court to consider the "nature and circumstances of the offense"); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (contemplating that the Guidelines sentence may "fail[ ] to properly reflect § 3553(a) considerations" or that a particular "case [may] warrant[ ] a different sentence regardless"). The sentence was not unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.