Case ID: f-appx_553/html/0718-01.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. Ponciano DIAZ-SOSA, a.k.a. Guillermo Ortega Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50124.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2014.
    Andrew Richard Haden, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ponciano Diaz-Sosa appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Diaz-Sosa contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to pronounce the Guidelines range prior to imposing the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. Diaz-Sosa has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the district court reiterated the applicable Guidelines range immediately before pronouncing the below-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008).

Diaz-Sosa also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his mitigation arguments. The record shows the district court heard Diaz-Sosa’s mitigation arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

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