Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael LIZARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-02
Citations: 368 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 09-50212
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael LIZARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael LIZARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50212.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 2, 2010.
Christina M. McCall, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Erick L. Guzman, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Michael Lizarraga appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lizarraga contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate and consider the applicable range under the Sentencing Guidelines. As Li-zarraga concedes, this contention is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2006). Applying this standard, the record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err at sentencing. See id.; see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Lizarraga also contends, to preserve for further review, that the supervised release revocation procedure under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 violates the Sixth Amendment. As Lizarraga concedes, this contention is foreclosed by 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.