Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James De Dios MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-02
Citations: 637 F. App'x 462
Docket Number: No. 15-50265
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James De Dios MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 462–462

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James De Dios MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50265.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed March 2, 2016.
Arash J. Fuladian, Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Joseph Camden, Trial, Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, 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
James De Dios Martinez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred by improperly relying on the need to punish and the need to promote respect for the law when fashioning his sentence. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court was primarily concerned with Martinez's poor history on supervision and breach of the court's trust, and did not base the sentence on any improper factors. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, the 12-month sentence, two months above the high end of the advisory Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.