United States of America v. Miguel Angel Loreto, a.k.a. Angel Loreto-Miguel, a.k.a. Jorge Matinez Rodriguez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
MIGUEL ANGEL LORETO, a.k.a. Angel
Loreto-Miguel, a.k.a. Jorge Matinez
Rodriguez,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10601
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00103-EJG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2011**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Loreto appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
NOV 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10601 2
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Loreto contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence that it
determined was reasonable, rather than one that was “sufficient, but not greater
than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Whether review is for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533
F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008), or abuse of discretion, the result is the same. We
conclude that the district court did not procedurally err, and that the sentence at the
bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --