United States v. Joel Valdez-Castro

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50101 · 2010-08-02 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel VALDEZ-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Susan Graber, Edward Leavy

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2010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. 09-50101 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-CR-02668-RTB v. MEMORANDUM * JOEL VALDEZ-CASTRO, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 29, 2010 ** Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Joel Valdez-Castro appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, 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). Valdez-Castro contends that the district court erred by determining that his prior conviction for assault with a firearm, in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(2), constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, because section 245(a)(2) does not contain the requisite intent or use of force. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1191-97 (9th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Heron-Salinas, 566 F.3d 898, 899 (9th Cir. 2009).

Valdez-Castro also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The district court did not procedurally err and, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, Valdez-Castro’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

2 09-50101