
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin LOPEZ-PATINO, a.k.a. Johnny Munez, AKA Robert Munoz, a.k.a. Carlos Villa, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10288.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 19, 2013.
    
    Filed May 13, 2013.
    
      Thomas Scott Hartzell, T.S. Hartzell, Attorney at Law, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant, Benjamin Lopez-Patino, appeals the district court’s imposition of a 120-month sentence for his second conviction for illegal re-entry after being deported, with an enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) because the reentry followed a conviction for an aggravated felony (child abuse of a six-month old baby). The statutory maximum for this offense is 20 years — double what Appellant received.

This conviction was Appellant’s fiftieth (50th) criminal conviction. Previously, Appellant had been convicted of a range of offenses, including drunk driving, burglary, multiple assaults (including once where he tried to run over someone with a vehicle), resisting arrest, child abuse, and illegal re-entry after deportation.

Appellant failed to object to the reasonableness of his sentence at trial, so our review is for plain error. United States v. Sylvester Norman Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2006). The district court considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and had a logical basis for varying upwards from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. Considering that a prior sentence of 100 months for illegal re-entry had not discouraged Appellant from re-entering the United States yet again, see United States v. Lopez-Patino, 391 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam), the district court did not err in sentencing him to 120 months.

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