Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Arnoldo MORALES MOSCOSO, a.k.a. Raul Mocoso, a.k.a. Jose Arnoldo Morales, a.k.a. Raul Moscoso, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-27
Citations: 558 F. App'x 767
Docket Number: No. 13-50016
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Arnoldo MORALES MOSCOSO, a.k.a. Raul Mocoso, a.k.a. Jose Arnoldo Morales, a.k.a. Raul Moscoso, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 558
Pages: 767–768

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Arnoldo MORALES MOSCOSO, a.k.a. Raul Mocoso, a.k.a. Jose Arnoldo Morales, a.k.a. Raul Moscoso, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50016.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 27, 2014.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Daniel H. Malvin, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Jose Amoldo Morales Moscoso appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Morales Moscoso contends that the district court erred by punishing him for rejecting a fast-track plea agreement and by not mentioning the parsimony principle found at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors, did not give any improper weight to Morales Mos-coso's rejection of the fast-track plea agreement in selecting the sentence, and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1194 (9th Cir.2011) ("[T]he district court is not required to . use specific phrases during the sentencing process.").
Morales Moscoso also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Morales Moscoso's extensive criminal history and his three prior deportations. See id.
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.2000), we remand this case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.