T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. P age 1 of 3 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. D A V I D CA SI M I RO BRA V O - CU EV A S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 10166 D . C . N o. 2: 02 -c r- 01 00 2-S R B -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. D A V I D CA SI M I RO BRA V O - CU EV A S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 10167 D . C . N o. 2: 10 -c r- 00 50 1-S R B -1

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona S us a n R . B ol t on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J une 12, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED JU N 21 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he gove rnm e nta r gue s tha tB r a vo- C ue va s w a i ve d thi s a r gum e ntbyf a i l i ng 1 t o r a i s e i ti n hi s pr i orappe a l . W e ne e d notr e s ol ve thi s i s s ue be c aus e B r a voC u e v a s ’ c la im f

a ils o n th e m e r its . P age 2 of 3 B efo re: D . W . N E L S O N , R A W L IN S O N , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A p p e lla n t D a v idB r a v o - C u e v a s ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e v o c a tio n o f h is s u p e rv is e dr e le a s e a n dth e s e n te n c e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p o s e df o rv io la tio n o f

h is s u p e rv is e dr e le a s e c o n d itio n s , a n df o llo w in g h is c o n v ic tio n f o rille g a l r e e n try . C ontr a ryt o B r a vo- C ue va s ’ a r gum e nt , the tw e nty - s e ve n m onth t e rm of 1 s u p e rv is e dr e le a s e h e r e c e iv e din 2 0 0 9 w a s v a lid lyim p o s e d . See U ni ted States v. Cade , 2 3 6 F .3 d4 6 3 , 4 6 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) ( “A s p ro v id ed b y [ 1 8 U .S .C .] § 3583( e ) ( 3) , ade f

e nda nti s note nt i t l e d t o c r e di ta ga i ns tthe r e voc a t i on s e nt e nc e f or t i m e s erved o n sup ervi se d rel ea se before re vo ca t i on . . . . ”) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notvi ol a t e the D oubl e J e opa r dyC l aus e byi m pos i ng a 77 -m on th sent ence for B ravo -C uevas’ new vi ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6 as w el l as a co n secu t i v e 6 -m o n th sen t en ce fo r v i o l at i o n o f h i s su p erv i sed rel ease co n d i t i o n s, d e s p ite th e f

a c t th a t b o th v io la tio n s r e s u lte df r o m th e s a m e c o n d u c t. See U ni ted State s v . Soto- O l i v as , 44 F . 3d 788, 790- 91 ( 9th C i r . 1995) . T he tr a ns c r i ptof theP age 3 of 3

s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng i ndi c a t e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtappr opr i a t e l yi m pos e d the 6- m o n th s e n te n c e a s as a n c tio n f o rB r a v o - C u e v a s ’ b r e a c h o f tru s t, a n dn o t “ s o le ly , or e ve n pr i m a r i l yba s e d on the s e ve r i tyof the ne w c r i m i na l of

f e ns e unde r l y i ng the re vo ca t i on . . . ” U

ni te d States v . Si m tob , 485 F . 3d 1058, 1063 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ; see a l so U ni te d State s v . H

am m ons , 558 F . 3d 1 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . AF F I RME D.