Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beryl Chris Buiza SILVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-29
Citations: 479 F. App'x 70
Docket Number: No. 11-10554
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beryl Chris Buiza SILVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 70–70

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beryl Chris Buiza SILVA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10554.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed June 29, 2012.
Susan B. Gray, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John J. Jordan, Law Office of John J. Jordan, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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
Beryl Chris Buiza Silva appeals from the 60-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.
Silva contends that his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court focused too heavily on his 2001 aggravated felony conviction and failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigating sentencing factors. The sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United, States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Silva also contends that his sentence to an aggravated term of incarceration under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was improper because the government did not allege in the indictment that he was previously convicted of an aggravated felony. As Silva concedes, this contention is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). See United States v. Pacheeo-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 412 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.