FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2011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. 10-10527
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00289-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOSE IRAHETA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Iraheta appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, 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).
Iraheta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider his challenge to the sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b),
by giving too much weight to the Guidelines, by failing to address the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by failing to provide an adequate explanation for
the sentence. We review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan,
608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). There is no plain error here because “the
district court listened to [Iraheta’s] arguments, stated that it had reviewed the
criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines
range.” Id.
Iraheta also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because
application of the 16-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2
resulted in a sentence that was greater than necessary to meet the goals of
sentencing. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range
was not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d at 1108-09.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-10527