Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel CHAVEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-04
Citations: 451 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 10-10366
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel CHAVEZ, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel CHAVEZ, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-10366.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 4, 2011.
Russell L. Carlberg, Assistant U.S., US-SAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Manuel Chavez, Jr., appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Chavez contends that the district court either failed to consider or did not understand its discretion to reduce his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.23, based on the time that he served in state custody due to a parole revocation resulting from the firearm possession at issue in this case. The record reflects that the district court understood that it had discretion to reduce Chavez's sentence and chose not to do so.
Chavez also contends that the district court erred by orally describing two of his prior convictions as felonies rather than misdemeanors. Chavez did not object to the mischaracterization at sentencing. Accordingly, we review for plain error. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir.2008). The error did not alter the Guidelines calculation and Chavez has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that his sentence would have been different but for the error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.