United States of America v. Guillermo Ortega

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
GUILLERMO ORTEGA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30378
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00224-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Ortega appeals from the 20-month and one-week sentence
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
FILED
SEP 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-10062 2
Ortega contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities, and that the sentence imposed was greater than
necessary to accomplish the purposes of sentencing. The record reflects that the
district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the need to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and provided a reasoned explanation for
the sentence imposed. The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence
was substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States
v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that the need to
consider unwarranted sentencing disparities is only one factor a district court is to
consider in imposing a sentence).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --