FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 04 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-30004
Plaintiff - Appellee,
D.C. No. 1:10-cr-30039-PA
v.
JESUS LEAL-CARDONA, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Leal-Cardona appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Leal-Cardona contends that the district court erroneously believed that it
lacked authority to depart or vary on the ground of cultural assimilation, or failed
to consider cultural assimilation as a ground for departure or variance. The record
*
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).
belies these contentions.
Leal also contends that the court failed to explain its decision not to vary or
depart from the Guidelines range on the ground of assimilation. The record
provides an adequate basis for meaningful appellate review of the within-
Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc).
He next argues that the court erroneously conflated departures and variances
and erred in its decision not to depart or vary on the ground of cultural
assimilation. He contends that the resulting sentence was substantively
unreasonable. Our review of a district court’s decision to vary or depart considers
only whether the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable. See United
States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421-22 (9th Cir. 2011). The record reflects that the
low-end sentence here was reasonable in light of the need for deterrence and
protection of the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); U.S.S.G. 2L1.2, cmt. n.8.
Leal finally argues that the court did not adequately address his arguments
regarding his “history and characteristics.” The court’s statements at sentencing
were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review of its reasonable within-
Guidelines sentence. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 992-93.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-30004