United States v. Barochs Alvarado-Moreno

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50478 · 2010-08-02 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barochs ALVARADO-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Fletcher (author), Stephen R. Reinhardt, Kim M. Wardlaw

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2010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. 09-50478 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00244-DMS v. BAROCHS ALVARADO-MORENO, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 19, 2010 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Barochs Alvarado-Moreno appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for attempted 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). Alvarado-Moreno contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court placed undue weight on his past convictions. 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, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1050 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (rejecting double-counting argument in § 1326 appeal).

AFFIRMED.

2 09-50478