NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10315
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:19-cr-02595-DCB-LCK-1
v.
JOAQUIN ANTONIO ALVARADO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Joaquin Antonio Alvarado appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
reentry of a removed alien, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Alvarado first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
(1) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and (2) explain the sentence
adequately, including the court’s reasons for rejecting his request for a downward
departure or variance. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none.
The district court’s explanation for the sentence, though brief, reflects that the
court considered the § 3553(a) factors and Alvarado’s arguments, and concluded
that a within-Guidelines sentence was justified by Alvarado’s criminal and
immigration history. The court was not required to do more. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (district court is not required to
“tick off” the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them and provides an
adequate explanation as long as it is sufficient “to permit meaningful appellate
review”).
Alvarado next contends that the 37-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of the district court’s alleged procedural errors and because
his particular circumstances justified a downward departure or variance. The court
did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In
light of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, the
sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-10315