Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus AGUILA-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-17
Citations: 385 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 09-50310
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus AGUILA-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 385
Pages: 620–620

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus AGUILA-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50310.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 17, 2010.
Bruce R. Castetter, Lara Alaine Sting-ley, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Erica Kristine Zunkel, Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, 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
Jesus Aguila-Flores appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revoeation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Aguila-Flores contends that the district court committed procedural error by, among other things, failing to explain the reasons underlying the sentence. The record indicates that the district court's sentencing explanation was adequate under the circumstances, and the court did not otherwise procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Aguila-Flores further contends that the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Aguila-Flores' within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.