Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Alfonso GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-23
Citations: 202 F. App'x 972
Docket Number: No. 06-30001
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Alfonso GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAYY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 972–974

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Alfonso GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30001.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.
Filed Oct. 23, 2006.
Pamela Jackson Byerly, Esq., USSPOffice of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lana C. Glenn, Esq., Law Office of Lana C.C. Glenn, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAYY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suit able for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Alfonso Garcia appeals from the 40-month sentence imposed on remand for resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Garcia contends that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, by failing to resolve his objections to certain prior offenses set forth in the presentence report, and by failing to resolve his objection as to the location of his deportation. The record demonstrates that the district court expressly determined that the location of his deportation did not affect sentencing, in accordance with Rule 32(i)(3)(B). See United States v. Castaneda, 16 F.3d 1504, 1513 (9th Cir.1994). Likewise, the district court reiterated its finding at Garcia's initial sentencing hearing that the prior offenses would not affect Garcia's sentence. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(B) (providing that the court make a determination as to "any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter"). Accordingly, the district court properly complied with the requirements of Rule 32. See Castaneda, 16 F.3d at 1513.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.