United States v. Nelson Miranda-Lopez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50171 · 2012-05-21 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson MIRANDA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Smith, Susan Graber

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2012

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. 11-50171 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03497-DMS v. MEMORANDUM * NELSON MIRANDA-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Nelson Miranda-Lopez appeals from the 57-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 * 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). we affirm.

Miranda-Lopez first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the reasons for its sentence. This contention is belied by the record, which shows that the district court adequately explained its reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc).

Miranda-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50171