FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2010
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. 09-50311
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02411-BTM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MIGUEL BRAVO-ROMERO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Bravo-Romero 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 pursuant to 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).
Bravo-Romero contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the
district court failed to consider an unwarranted disparity between his sentence and
the sentences of other similarly situated defendants. The record reflects that the
district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the
need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, before imposing a sentence at the
bottom of the Guidelines range. Thus, the district court did not procedurally err in
fashioning the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 719
(9th Cir. 2006).
Bravo-Romero also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable because the district court failed to apply this court’s reasoning in
United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1054-56 (9th Cir. 2009). The
record reflects that the district court considered Bravo-Romero’s argument in this
regard, but found the facts of the instant case to be distinguishable and therefore
insufficient to justify a lower sentence based upon the holding of that case. Cf. id.
at 1055-56. The sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-50311