Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0917-01.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. Ramiro LOPEZ-AQUIRRE, a.k.a. Hector Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez-Aguirre, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50219
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 01, 2016
    Meghan Heesch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego County Office/Fed. Office Bldg, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Sarah Rose Weinman, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramiro Lopez-Aquirre appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez-Aquirre contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his mitigating arguments. We review for harmless error, see United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2011), and find none. The record reflects that the district court listened to Lopez-Aquirre’s mitigating arguments. Moreover, the district court’s reasons for imposing the sentence are apparent from the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”). Nothing more was required. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

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