Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilberto LOPEZ-ROMO, a.k.a. Romero Gilberto Lopez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-18
Citations: 687 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: Nos. 16-50219, 16-50220
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilberto LOPEZ-ROMO, a.k.a. Romero Gilberto Lopez, Defendant-Appellant,
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilberto LOPEZ-ROMO, a.k.a. Romero Gilberto Lopez, Defendant-Appellant,
Nos. 16-50219, 16-50220
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 18, 2017
Michael J. Heyman, Helen H. Hong, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jesus Mosqueda, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Gilberto Lopez-Romo challenges the 18-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, and the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez-Romo contends that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to adequately address his mitigating arguments in favor of lower sentences for his illegal reentry conviction and violation of supervised release. The district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record demonstrates that the district court listened to Lopez-Romo's arguments, identified what the court believed to be the only legitimate mitigating factor, and weighed that factor against aggravating factors before imposing the within-Guidelines sentences in both cases. The district court's explanation was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en bane).
Lopez-Romo next argues that the district court impermissibly based the revocation sentence on the need to punish his underlying criminal conduct. The record does not support Lopez-Romo's argument, and instead, demonstrates that the district court permissibly based the sentence on Lopez-Romo's breach of the court's trust, his history and characteristics, and the need for deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.