Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0376-02.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. Luis Enrique AVILA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50368.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2015.
    David Daniel Leshner, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Doug Keller, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAYY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Enrique Avila-Aeosta appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Avila-Acosta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his non-frivolous argument for leniency and by failing to explain adequately its sentence. We review for harmless error, see United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam), and find no error. The record reflects that the district court considered Avila-Acosta’s arguments' for leniency, and the court’s explanation of its low-end Guidelines sentence was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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