Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando RUIZ-GARCIA Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-31
Citations: 286 F. App'x 467
Docket Number: No. 07-50429
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando RUIZ-GARCIA Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando RUIZ-GARCIA Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50429.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed July 31, 2008.
Carlos Arguello, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gregory T. Murphy, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fernando Ruiz-Garcia appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have juris diction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1291, and we affirm.
Ruiz-Garcia contends that the district court failed to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 3583(e) and failed to explain why those factors justified the sentence it imposed. Ruiz-Garcia further contends that his 21-month sentence, imposed consecutively to his sentence for the underlying offense, is unreasonable in light of the applicable § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error and that Ruiz-Garcia's sentence is substantively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, -U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1061-64 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Fifield, 432 F.3d 1056, 1063-66 (9th Cir.2005).
Ruiz-Garcia also contends that the supervised release regime violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This contention is foreclosed. See 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.