Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos U. LOBO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-19
Citations: 709 F. App'x 496
Docket Number: No. 17-50044
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos U. LOBO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos U. LOBO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50044
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 16, 2018
Filed January 19, 2018
Francis Anthony DiGiacco, Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, George Manahan, Esquire, 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: REINHARDT, TROTT, 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
Carlos U. Lobo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lobo contends that the district court procedurally erred by falling to explain adequately why it rejected his mitigating arguments. The district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the district court considered Lobo's mitigating arguments, but concluded that a consecutive sentence was warranted in light of the need to sanction Lobo's breach of the district court's trust and Lobo's history and characteristics. This explanation was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en bane). Moreover, Lobo has not shown a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different if the district court had provided further explanation. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.