Case ID: f-appx_414/html/0947-01.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. Pedro BRISENO-MARIN, a.k.a. Juan Lopez-Lopez, a.k.a. Sergio Marin-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30174.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 17, 2011.
    
      Pamela Jackson Byerly, USSP—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pedro Briseno-Marin appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Briseno-Marin contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) remain cognizant of the guidelines throughout sentencing; and (3) adequately 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). Moreover, any such error by the district court did not affect Briseno-Marin’s substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

Briseno-Marin also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The sentence was reasonable in light of Briseno-Marin’s continued recidivism, the need for deterrence, and the breach of trust as evidenced by Briseno-Marin’s illegal reentry a mere month after his last deportation. See U.S.S.G. Ch.7, Pt. A(3)(b); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

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