Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0565-02.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. Harry ORLANDO-PAPIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50241.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 4, 2010.
    Timothy Francis Salel, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Hanni Meena Fakhoury, Esquire, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Harry Orlando-Papias appeals from the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Papias contends that the district court proeedurally erred by not sufficiently explaining his sentence and impermissibly relying primarily upon the need to punish him for the criminal conduct underlying the revocation. These contentions lack merit because the record reflects that the district court listened to the parties’ arguments and adopted probation’s reasoning, which emphasized Papias’ overall criminal history, including the fact that Papias had reoffended eight months after his release from custody. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007).

Papias further asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the sentence imposed is greater than necessary to further the relevant sentencing goals set forth under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e). The sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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