United States v. Joel Perez-Aguirre
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel PEREZ-AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Richard A. Paez (author), Thomas, Harry Pregerson
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2011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. 10-50355 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01110-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * JOEL PEREZ-AGUIRRE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2011 ** Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Joel Perez-Aguirre appeals from the 51-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.
* 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). Perez-Aguirre contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence because it focused too heavily on his criminal history and did not account for his motive in returning to the United States. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court’s sentence within the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50355