gno.law

United States v. Noel Sandoval-Aguilar

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50112 · 2010-01-11 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel SANDOVAL-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Raymond C. Fisher

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 11 2010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. 09-50112 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-CR-03173-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * NOEL SANDOVAL-AGUILAR, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 15, 2009 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Noel Sandoval-Aguilar appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in * 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).

EH/Research violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sandoval-Aguilar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider sentencing disparities, that his sentence is punishment for exercising his rights, and that the district court failed to adequately explain his sentence. Sandoval-Aguilar also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary in light of his mitigating factors.

A review of the record demonstrates that the district court did not procedurally err, and that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Finally, Sandoval-Aguilar contends, without supporting argument, that the statutory maximum for his offense is 24 months. This court has held that the statutory maximum for reentry crimes is 20 years where, as here, the defendant has received a sentencing enhancement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). See United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

EH/Research 2 09-50112

Cites, in this corpus