Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo Aramando MARROQUIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-05
Citations: 316 F. App'x 649
Docket Number: No. 08-50191
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo Aramando MARROQUIN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 649–650

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo Aramando MARROQUIN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-50191.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed: March 5, 2009.
Christopher Alexander, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elizabeth M. Barros, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Devin Burstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendanb-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ricardo Aramando Marroquin appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Marroquin contends that the district court failed to consider whether the sentence imposed was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We are not persuaded that the district court erred.
Marroquin further contends that, at sentencing, the district court relied on impermissible factors, including the need for punishment, and did not adequately consider the need for rehabilitation. We conclude that the district court did not err, because the record reflects that it sought to sanction Marroquin for a breach of trust, rather than to punish him, and the district court properly considered the goal of rehabilitation. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.