United States v. Napier Valdez-Brito
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Napier VALDEZ-BRITO, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Dana M. Sabraw (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain (author), Carlos T. Bea, Richard C. Tallman
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2010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. 09-50288 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-CR-03614-DMS v. MEMORANDUM * NAPIER VALDEZ-BRITO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Napier Valdez-Brito appeals from his 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea 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.
Valdez-Brito contends that the sentence imposed by the district court was * 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). greater than necessary to accomplish the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record reflects that the district court thoroughly considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and provided a well-reasoned explanation for the sentence imposed. The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence was substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991- 93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-10062