FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 28 2011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. 10-50385
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03725-L
v.
MEMORANDUM *
HUGO CRUZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Hugo Cruz 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. § 1291, and
we affirm.
*
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).
Cruz contends that the district court erred when it imposed a 16-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), based on his prior conviction
for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant partner, in violation of
California Penal Code § 273.5. The record reflects that the district court properly
applied the enhancement after determining that the conviction was a felony and a
crime of violence. See United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir.
2010); United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2003)
(defining “felony” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 and holding that a “crime of violence”
need only be a felony as defined by the Guidelines for purposes of the 16-level
enhancement).
Cruz further contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the district
court failed to properly consider the individualized facts of his case. This
contention is belied by the record, which reflects that the district court adequately
considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the mitigating factors
presented by Cruz. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is
substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50385