United States of America v. Felix Santiago Lemus- 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
FELIX SANTIAGO LEMUS-
RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10505
D.C. No. 4:09-cr-01358-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Felix Santiago Lemus-Rodriguez appeals from the 41-month sentence
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
FILED
FEB 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-10505 2
we affirm.
Lemus-Rodriguez contends that the district court committed procedural error
by: (1) relying on a clearly erroneous fact; (2) failing to explain adequately its
reasons for rejecting his arguments; and (3) failing to explain adequately the
reasons for and the extent of variance from the guidelines range.
Lemus-Rodriguez has not demonstrated that the alleged factual error by the
district court affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533
F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008). Lemus-Rodriguez’s other contentions of
procedural error are belied by the record. It is clear the district court considered
Lemus-Rodriguez’s sentencing arguments. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512
F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, 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 of 2 --