Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heriberto NAVARRETE-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Erik Navarete-Jimenez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-09
Citations: 437 F. App'x 595
Docket Number: No. 10-50471
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Heriberto NAVARRETE-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Erik Navarete-Jimenez, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 595–595

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Heriberto NAVARRETE-JIMENEZ, a.k.a. Erik Navarete-Jimenez, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-50471.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 9, 2011.
Amie Danielle Rooney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jennifer Lynn Coon, Law Office of Jennifer L. Coon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Heriberto Navarrete-Jimenez appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Navarrete-Jimenez first contends that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it failed to consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and his mitigation arguments. However, "the record makes clear that the district court considered the evidence and arguments of the defendant and based its sentence on an analysis of the advisory Guidelines range and the provisions of [18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) ]." United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1000 (9th Cir.2008).
Navarrete-Jimenez next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court improperly focused on the timing of the violation and discounted the mitigating factors. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including the brief period of time between Navarrete-Jimenez's release from custody and his illegal return to the United States, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Navarrete-Jimenez last contends that § 3583(e)(3) is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1223-25 (9th Cir.2006), and United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.