Opinion
No. 06-10387.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 2, 2007.
Rachel Cristina Hernandez, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel L. Kaplan, Esq., FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-00749-1-NVW.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Oscar Calvillo-Jimenez appeals from the 92-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and enhanced by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Calvillo-Jimenez contends that the district court misapprehended the law by denying a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. We conclude that there is no support in the record for this contention. Furthermore, we conclude that as a factual matter, the district did not clearly err by denying the downward adjustment. See United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004).
Appellant also contends that his sentence was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and because the district court did not discuss appellant's need for drug treatment. We conclude that appellant's sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006); See also United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2006).