Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0498-01.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. Christian LOPEZ-CORRALES, a.k.a. Raul Gomez-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10455
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed October 2, 2017
    David Patrick Savel, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brenda Dabdoub, Esquire, Law Office of Brenda Dabdoub, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Christian Lopez-Corrales appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291, and we affirm.

For the first time on appeal, Lopez-Corrales contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to explain adequately the sentence with reference to specific 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors, and (2) impermissibly imposing the sentence to punish him for the underlying criminal conviction. The district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record demonstrates that the district court provided an adequate explanation for the sentence and did not impose the sentence to punish him for the criminal conviction. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (district court need not “tick off’ each sentencing factor); see also United States v. Reyes-Solosa, 761 F.3d 972, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court may “consider the entire picture, including the sentence imposed for the underlying crime that caused the revocation” when imposing revocation sentence).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 24-month sentence in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

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