Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando TORRES-NAVARETTE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-02
Citations: 368 F. App'x 815
Docket Number: No. 09-50011
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando TORRES-NAVARETTE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 815–816

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando TORRES-NAVARETTE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50011.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 2, 2010.
Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Armando Torres-Navarette appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed after 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Torres-Navarette contends the district court procedurally erred by, among other things, departing upward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 for under-represented criminal history. The district court did not err in imposing Torres-Navarette's sentence. See United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 986 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Higuera-Llamos, 574 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir.2009).
Torres-Navarette also contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances of this case and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (appellate courts are to give due deference to the district court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.