Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0386-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10660.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
    Nirav Kaushik Desai, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Douglas J. Beevers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Angel Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the sentence of 12 months and one day imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that the district court erred by failing to explain the sentence and its reasons for rejecting his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered all of Hernandez’s arguments and adequately explained the sentence to permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007) (upon revocation, a district court may sanction the defendant for his breach of the court’s trust)

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