Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0401-01.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. Jesus Manuel ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30095.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
    Justin David Whatcott, Office of The U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    C. Tom Arkoosh, Arkoosh Law Offices, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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

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

Zuniga contends that the district court proeedurally erred by confusing the 24-month statutory maximum with the top of the Guidelines range when it imposed the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court was aware of the applicable Guidelines range and simply misspoke when it stated that 24 months was at the top of the Guidelines range. Furthermore, any error did not affect Zuniga’s substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

We decline to consider Zuniga’s argument that the district court failed to explain the sentence, because he raised it for the first time in the reply brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n. 9 (9th Cir.2007).

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