United States v. Moises Valverde-Garcia
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moises VALVERDE-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Atsushi W. Tashima, Stephen S. Trott
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2009
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. 09-50143 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-CR-01454-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * MOISES VALVERDE-GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2009 ** Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Moises Valverde-Garcia appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EG/Research States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.
Valverde-Garcia contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable given that his prior felony convictions were for non- violent immigration offenses. Our review of the record indicates that the judge’s § 3553(a) analysis was procedurally adequate under the circumstances. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Considering the totality of the circumstances, as well as the § 3553(a) factors, the district court’s sentence was substantively reasonable.
Id. at 993.
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1326(b), and correct the judgment to reflect 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) as the statute of conviction. See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
EG/Research 2 09-50143