Case ID: f-appx_375/html/0738-01.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. David Barajas NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50230.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 14, 2010.
    Timothy Francis Salel, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy Robert Garrison, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, 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

David Barajas Navarro appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Navarro contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to expressly calculate or consider the applicable Guidelines range. We review Navarro’s contention for plain error. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2009). Navarro has not shown that the district court’s failure to expressly calculate the applicable Guidelines range affected his substantial rights. The Guidelines range was set out in the petition for revocation of supervised release, the parties did not dispute that the range calculated in the petition was correct, and the court sentenced within it.

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