United States v. Oscar Jimenez-Lopez

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 12 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-10393 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00865-CKJ v. MEMORANDUM * OSCAR JIMENEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 6, 2012 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Oscar Jimenez-Lopez appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry after 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). Jimenez-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and we find none. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may . . . be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”). Jimenez-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 11-10393