FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50068
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-02439-BEN
v.
MEMORANDUM *
HECTOR RANGEL-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hector Rangel-Lopez appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, the
Defendant’s request for oral argument is denied.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Rangel-Lopez contends that the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence under United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050
(9th Cir. 2009). Amezcua-Vasquez is limited to the “specific set of facts presented”
in that case. Id. at 1058. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range in this
case is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Rangel-Lopez also contends that the district court abused its discretion in
selecting a sentence within the range dictated by the enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2 based on recidivism concerns. The district court properly considered the
need for adequate deterrence in assessing whether a sentence within the enhanced
Guidelines range was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the
goals of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d at 1055
(stating that reasonableness of sentence within the enhanced Guidelines range is to
be determined in light of the section 3553(a) factors); United States v. Orozco-
Acosta, 607 F.3d 1156, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming a sentence within the
enhanced Guidelines range, in light of the district court’s findings that the sentence
was necessary to protect the public and to deter a subsequent reentry).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50068