FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-30400

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00060-JLQ

v. MEMORANDUM * ANTONIO PAMATZ-HUERTA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010 **

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

Antonio Pamatz-Huerta appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after

deportation, in violation of

. We have jurisdiction under

. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

* 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). Pamatz-Huerta contends that his sentence on the low-end of the advisory

Guideline range is both substantively and procedurally unreasonable because it is

calculated based on the 16-point crime of violence enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), that he contends lacks justification, conflicts with the primary

purpose of sentencing, and is excessively harsh. To the extent that Pamatz-Huerta

challenges the validity of the crime of violence enhancement, his challenge is

foreclosed. See United States v. Ramirez-Garcia,

(9th Cir.

2001) (“Congress made abundantly clear when it amended the illegal reentry

statute (

(b)) that it wished to enhance the penalties for aliens with

prior convictions in order to deter others.”).

Pamatz-Huerta also contends that the district court procedurally erred by

neglecting to meaningfully address his mitigating argument and by failing to

explain why a lesser sentence would not have satisfied the parsimony principle.

The record reflects that the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors,

provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence, and did not otherwise

procedurally err. See United States v. Carty,

(9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc); see also United States v. Diaz-Argueta,

(9th

Cir. 2009).

2 09-30400 Pamatz-Huerta last contends that his sentence based on the 16-point crime of

violence enhancement is substantively unreasonable because it violates the

parsimony principle. The record reflects that the 77-month sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section

3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States,

(2007); cf. United

States v. Amezcua-Vasquez,

(9th Cir. 2009).

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,

(9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it

delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to section 1326(b). See United

States v. Herrera-Blanco,

(9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte

to delete the reference to section 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

3 09-30400