United States of America v. Jose Iraheta

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JOSE IRAHETA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10527
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00289-SBA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Iraheta appeals from the 57-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
OCT 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10527 2
Iraheta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider his challenge to the sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b),
by giving too much weight to the Guidelines, by failing to address the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by failing to provide an adequate explanation for
the sentence. We review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan,
608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). There is no plain error here because “the
district court listened to [Iraheta’s] arguments, stated that it had reviewed the
criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines
range.” Id.
Iraheta also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because
application of the 16-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2
resulted in a sentence that was greater than necessary to meet the goals of
sentencing. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range
was not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d at 1108-09.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --