Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin Celestino MORALES-GUMECINDO, a.k.a. Martin Celestino-Gomesindo, a.k.a. Martin Celestino Gomesindo Morales, a.k.a. Martin Morales-Gumecindo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-21
Citations: 671 F. App'x 690
Docket Number: No. 16-10034
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin Celestino MORALES-GUMECINDO, a.k.a. Martin Celestino-Gomesindo, a.k.a. Martin Celestino Gomesindo Morales, a.k.a. Martin Morales-Gumecindo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 690–691

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin Celestino MORALES-GUMECINDO, a.k.a. Martin Celestino-Gomesindo, a.k.a. Martin Celestino Gomesindo Morales, a.k.a. Martin Morales-Gumecindo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10034
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 21, 2016
Erica Leigh Seger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee Randolfo V. Lopez, Attorney, Randolfo V. Lopez, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Martin Celestino Morales-Gumecindo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Morales-Gumecindo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the proposed amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 at sentencing. This claim fails. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 917 (9th Cir. 2011) ( [<£W]here an amendment has been promulgated but has not yet been adopted, district courts are not required to consider that amendment in the § 3553 analysis .").
Morales-Gumecindo next argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He contends that the 16-level enhancement he received for his prior offense resulted in a Guidelines range that was unreasonable. The court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Morales-Gumecin-do. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Morales-Gumecindo's criminal history. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.