United States of America v. Arturo Toscano-Villasenor

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ARTURO TOSCANO-VILLASENOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50218
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03434-L
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Toscano-Villasenor appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
FILED
FEB 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50218 2
Toscano-Villasenor contends that the district court erred when it applied a
16-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), because his prior
conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or co-habitant, in violation of
section 273.5 of the California Penal Code, does not qualify as a crime of violence.
This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818, 823
(9th Cir. 2010).
Toscano-Villasenor further contends that the district court procedurally erred
by treating the Sentencing Guidelines as presumptively reasonable. The record
reflects that the district court did not so err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Toscano-Villasenor also contends that the district court imposed a
substantively unreasonable sentence that was greater than necessary to fulfill the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In light of the totality of the circumstances and
the section 3553(a) factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is
substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --