Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Octavio Ernesto ESPINO-ACATA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-08
Citations: 170 F. App'x 467
Docket Number: No. 05-30316
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Octavio Ernesto ESPINO-ACATA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 170
Pages: 467–467

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Octavio Ernesto ESPINO-ACATA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-30316.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2006.
Decided March 8, 2006.
Elizabeth A. Horsman, Esq., USHE—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David F. Ness, Esq., FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Octavio Ernesto Espino-Acata appeals his 57-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction on one count of Illegal Reentry of a Deported Alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review Espino-Acata's 57-month sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). At the sentencing hearing, the district court weighed the Sentencing Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months and considered other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, noting that Espino-Acata's prior drug conviction, return to the United States following deportation, and drug problem warrant a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range. The court did not err in concluding that Espino-Acata has a drug problem; he told the court that this was the case and requested enrollment in the Bureau of Prisons' drug treatment program. We conclude that the sentence is reasonable. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 261, 125 S.Ct. 738; United States v. Plouffe, 436 F.3d 1062, 1062 (9th Cir.2006).
Espino-Acata's due process claim also fails, as he has not shown that the district court's assumption that he used drugs was false or unreliable. See United States v. Ching, 682 F.2d 799, 801 (9th Cir.1982).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.