From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Jimenez-Aguilera

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 12, 2010
399 F. App'x 270 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-50489.

Submitted September 13, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed October 12, 2010.

Sara J. O'Connell, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William R. Burgener, Law Office of William R. Burgener, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:09-cr-02166-JLS.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Sergio Jimenez-Aguilera appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jimenez-Aguilera contends that the district court failed to consider properly his personal circumstances and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not procedurally err and Jimenez-Aguilera's sentence is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Jimenez-Aguilera

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 12, 2010
399 F. App'x 270 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Jimenez-Aguilera

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio JIMENEZ-AGUILERA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 12, 2010

Citations

399 F. App'x 270 (9th Cir. 2010)