Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0823-01.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. Francisco Misael AMAYA-PORTILLO, AKA Francisco Amaya-Portillo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10533
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 12, 2016  San Francisco, California
    Filed September 19, 2016
    
      William G. Voit, Attorney, USPX — Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas M. Hoidal, Esquire, Law Office of Thomas M. Hoidal, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

After Francisco Amaya-Portillo pleaded guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), the district court sentenced him to 18-months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm the sentence.

Amaya-Portillo’s sole claim on appeal is that the government breached the plea agreement he had entered into by implicitly arguing for a harsher sentence than the agreement allowed. We disagree. While the government could have recommended the agreed-upon sentence more enthusiastically, it had no obligation to do that. See United, States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, the government recommended the proper sentence, gave reasons to support it, and addressed likely objections. This is all the agreement reasonably demanded.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,