United States of America v. Ivan Arevalo-Hernandez

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IVAN AREVALO-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10142
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00838-MHP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ivan Arevalo-Hernandez appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
FILED
JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10142 2
Arevalo-Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to address his argument for a sentence in the Guidelines range applicable to
defendants offered fast-track dispositions. The record reflects that the district court
did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007);
United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 83 (2009).
Furthermore, under the totality of the circumstances, the below-Guidelines
sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51-52 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --