Case ID: f-appx_469/html/0541-01.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. Melissa JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50426.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2012.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Aaron B. Clark, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Caitlin Elizabeth Howard, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Melissa Jimenez appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed following the revocation of her supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jimenez contends that the district court procedurally erred because it failed to explain its reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. She also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because the sentence is longer than necessary. Jimenez’s contentions are not supported by the record. The district court did not procedurally err, and Jimenez’s sentence is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Jimenez last contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As she concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1223-25 (9th Cir.2006), and United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008).

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