Case ID: f-appx_598/html/0560-02.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 CRUZ-CARRASCO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 18, 2015.
    Janet Cabral, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vincent James Brunkow, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, 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

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

Cruz-Carrasco contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his non-frivolous mitigation arguments. We review for harmless error, see United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam), and find no error. The record reflects that the district court expressly addressed Cruz-Carrasco’s mitigation arguments before it imposed a below-Guidelines revocation sentence.

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