United States of America v. Ernesto Soto-Herrera

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).
SMS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERNESTO SOTO-HERRERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-10535
D.C. No. 4:08-CR-00567-JMR
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John M. Roll, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ernesto Soto-Herrera appeals from the 56-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in
FILED
APR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

SMS/Research 08-10535 2
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Soto-Herrera contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider the mitigating circumstances presented. He also contends that the district
court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record indicates that the
district court considered the defense’s arguments in the course of determining
Soto-Herrera’s sentence and therefore did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92,
995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Further, considering the totality of the
circumstances, including the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district
court’s sentence below the middle of the Guidelines range was substantively
reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --