Case ID: f-appx_385/html/0748-01.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. Fernando VEGA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50637.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 1, 2010.
    Adam Lome Braverman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Trenton Packer, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ABARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Vega-Sanchez appeals from the six-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vega-Sanehez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) meaningfully consider and address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); and (3) explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 600 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.2010) (concluding that there was no plain error where “the district court listened to [defendant’s] arguments, stated that it had reviewed the criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range”).

Vega-Sanchez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the six-month sentence 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.