Case ID: f-appx_688/html/0439-01.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. Ernesto CASILLAS-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50109
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 19, 2017
    Helen H. Hong, Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Ryan A. Sausedo, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Michael Marks, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ernesto Casillas-Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed 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.

Casillas-Perez contends that the district court procedurally erred by basing his sentence on the erroneous belief that he was on supervised release at the time of the offense. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there was none. Contrary to Casillas-Perez’s contention, the court’s mention of his breach of the court’s trust does not reflect that the court believed that he was on supervised release. In any event, Casil-las-Perez has not shown that any error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.