United States v. Romo-Romo
This text of 328 F. App'x 430 (United States v. Romo-Romo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Romo-Romo appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Romo-Romo contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court’s failure to consider the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and his mitigating factors resulted in a mandatory application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We conclude that Romo-Romo’s sentence is procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1002 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
328 F. App'x 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-romo-romo-ca9-2009.