Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon RAMOS-SOLANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-03
Citations: 474 F. App'x 539
Docket Number: No. 11-10439
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon RAMOS-SOLANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 539–540

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon RAMOS-SOLANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10439.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 3, 2012.
Michele Myers Beckwith, Michael M. Beckwith, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Courtney Diane Fein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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
Ramon Ramos-Solano appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ramos-Solano first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the reasons for the sentence or why it rejected his mitigating arguments. The record reflects that the district court reviewed all of the evidence submitted, listened to the mitigating arguments, and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors as limited by section 3583. Nothing more was required here. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
Ramos-Solano also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to meet the goals of rehabilitation. The record reflects that the sentence is substan tively reasonable in light of Ramos-Sola-no's lengthy criminal history, failure to be deterred, and breach of trust. See 18 U.S.C. § 8588(e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006) (at a revocation sentencing, a district court may sanction the defendant for his breach of trust).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.