Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto CASILLAS-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-19
Citations: 688 F. App'x 439
Docket Number: No. 16-50109
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto CASILLAS-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 439–439

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto CASILLAS-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50109
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 19, 2017
Helen H. Hong, Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Ryan A. Sausedo, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Michael Marks, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Ernesto Casillas-Perez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Casillas-Perez contends that the district court procedurally erred by basing his sentence on the erroneous belief that he was on supervised release at the time of the offense. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there was none. Contrary to Casillas-Perez's contention, the court's mention of his breach of the court's trust does not reflect that the court believed that he was on supervised release. In any event, Casil-las-Perez has not shown that any error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.