Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis CRUZ-CARRASCO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-18
Citations: 598 F. App'x 560
Docket Number: No. 14-50336
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis CRUZ-CARRASCO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 598
Pages: 560–561

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis CRUZ-CARRASCO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50336.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 18, 2015.
Janet Cabral, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Vincent James Brunkow, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, 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
Luis Cruz-Carrasco appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the six-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cruz-Carrasco contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his non-frivolous mitigation arguments. We review for harmless error, see United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam), and find no error. The record reflects that the district court expressly addressed Cruz-Carrasco's mitigation arguments before it imposed a below-Guidelines revocation sentence.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.