Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ohara M. MOLINERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-21
Citations: 462 F. App'x 752
Docket Number: No. 10-30326
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ohara M. MOLINERO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 462
Pages: 752–753

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ohara M. MOLINERO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30326.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 21, 2011.
Aine Ahmed, Assistant U.S., USSP-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Terence Michael Ryan, Terence Ryan Law Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ohara M. Molinero appeals from the 78-month prison sentence and ten-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Molinero contends that the district court violated 18 U.S.C. § 3552(d) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e) by failing to grant him sufficient time to review the presentence report. This contention is unavailing because Molinero failed to establish that any technical error committed by the district court in not strictly complying with these provisions affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 552-54 (9th Cir.2008).
Molinero next contends that the district court violated his due process rights by not affording him a second opportunity to address the court regarding his prior felony harassment conviction. This contention lacks merit because the record reflects that the court personally addressed Mo-linero, and provided him and his counsel ample opportunity to present information regarding the harassment conviction. See United States v. Mack, 200 F.3d 653, 658 (9th Cir.2000).
Finally, Molinero contends that the district court's imposition of a ten-year term of supervised release was unreasonable and disproportionately severe punishment. Under the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the ten-year supervised release term is reasonable. See United States v. Cope, 527 F.3d 944, 952 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.