FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2011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. 10-50286
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01290-R
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BILLY ALFARO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Billy Alfaro appeals from the 180-month sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1). 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).
Alfaro contends that the district court failed to give an adequate explanation
for the sentence it imposed and thereby committed procedural error. We review
for plain error because Alfaro did not object to the district court’s alleged failure to
sufficiently explain the sentence imposed. See United States v. Sylvester Norman
Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d. 913, 918 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court explanation
was sufficient. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-58 (2007).
Accordingly, there was no error, let alone plain error. See United States v.
Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Alfaro also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
some of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, particularly his history and characteristics,
allegedly counseled toward leniency in sentencing. In light of the totality of the
circumstances, including facts set out in the PSR indicating conduct that is much
more serious than mere receipt of child pornography, the within-Guidelines
sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007); United States v Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50286