Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson MIRANDA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-21
Citations: 473 F. App'x 626
Docket Number: No. 11-50171
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson MIRANDA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson MIRANDA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50171.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 21, 2012.
Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Zandra Luz Lopez, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, 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
Nelson Miranda-Lopez appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Miranda-Lopez first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the reasons for its sentence. This contention is belied by the record, which shows that the district court adequately explained its reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Miranda-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.