N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. HILARIO M O RENO-GAR C IA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30382

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00041-WFN M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Wm . Fre m

m ing Nie lse n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Hila rio M ore n o-Garc ia

a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 27-m onth c onse c utivese nte nc e im pose d upon re voc ation of supe rvise d re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JAN 03 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Ac c o rdingly M o re noGarc ia ’ s re que st for ora l a rgum e nt is de nie d.M ore no-Ga rc ia c onte nds tha

t the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of his m otions to unse a l the se nte nc i ng tra

nsc ripts of his c o-de fe nda nts viola te d his First Am e ndm e nt rights a

nd im pe de d his a

bility to e va l uate his se nte nc e for dispa ritie s with these nte nc e s of his c o-de fe nda nts. Thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion be c a

use the re c ord supports its c onc lusion tha t M ore n o-Garc ia ’ s inte re st in inve stiga

ting potentia l se nte nc ing dispa ritie s did not outwe i gh thec om pe lling inte re s t of m a inta ining thesa fe ty of his c o-de fe nda

nts a nd the ir fam ilie s. Se eIn re C ople y Pre ss, Inc . , 518 F.3d 1022, 1026, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2008). M ore no-Ga

rc ia ne xt a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d by fa iling to c onside r unwa

rrante d se nte nc ing dispa

ritie s whe n it de c i de d

to run his re voc ation se nte nc e c onse c ut ive ly to these nte nc e for his underly ing drug c onspira c y . W e re vie w for pla i n e rror, s e eUnite d State s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd find none . The distric t c ourt c onside re d M ore n o-Garc ia ’ s se nte nc ing dispa rity argum e nt a

nd found it unpersua s ive be c a use M ore n o-Garc ia ’ s c i rc um sta nc e s we re unique . M ore no-Ga

rc ia fina lly c onte nds tha

t his se nte n c e is substa

ntive l y unre a s ona

ble . The distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in im

posing the se nte nc e . S

e eGall v . Unite d State

s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The Guide line s c onte m p late tha t re v oc at ion se nte nc e s a

re to run c onse c utive ly to se nte nc e s for 1 2 - 3 0 3 8 2 2ne w offe nse s, se e U.S.S.G. § 7B 1.3(f), a nd M ore no-Ga

rc i a ’ s se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of his bre a c h of the c ourt’ s trust. Se e Unite d State s v . Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th C ir. 2007). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 3 0 3 8 2 3