United States of America v. Daniel Romero-Perez, aka Francisco Gaspar-Jose

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).
SZ/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL ROMERO-PEREZ, aka
Francisco Gaspar-Jose,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50243
D.C. No. 3:09-CR-00093-MLH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Romero-Perez appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United
FILED
MAR 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

SZ/Research 09-50243 2
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Romero-Perez contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district
court gave little weight to the fact that he returned to the United States to care for
his ailing father and to the fact that he accepted responsibility at an early stage in
the proceeding. He also contends that the district court erred by denying his
request for a downward departure because he was compelled to return to the
United States as a result of his father’s ill health. We review the overall sentence
for reasonableness. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.
2008). The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and made an individualized determination based on
the facts. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc). In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively
reasonable. See id. at 993; cf. United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050,
1054-58 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --