Case ID: f-appx_455/html/0787-01.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. Edward LOPEZ, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-50033.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
    U.S. Atty. Cas, Esquire, Bruce R. Cas-tetter, 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: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edward Lopez, Jr., appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to expressly calculate the Guidelines range. Lopez has not shown that the district court’s failure to expressly calculate the Guidelines range affected his substantial rights, particularly where the Violation Sentencing Summary correctly calculated the Guidelines range. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008).

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