Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Castillejo HUNOSTA, a.k.a. Mike Castillego, a.k.a. Jorge Huandsta Castillejo, a.k.a. Erik Caston, a.k.a. Saul Matias, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-16
Citations: 597 F. App'x 450
Docket Number: No. 14-50146
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Castillejo HUNOSTA, a.k.a. Mike Castillego, a.k.a. Jorge Huandsta Castillejo, a.k.a. Erik Caston, a.k.a. Saul Matias, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 450–450

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Castillejo HUNOSTA, a.k.a. Mike Castillego, a.k.a. Jorge Huandsta Castillejo, a.k.a. Erik Caston, a.k.a. Saul Matias, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50146.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 16, 2015.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Robert Andre Rabbani, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Jorge Castillejo Hunosta appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Castillejo Hunosta contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to address or consider his request that the revocation sentence run concurrently to the sentence imposed for Castillejo Hunosta's new criminal conviction, and (2) relying on impermissible sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered only proper sentencing factors, as well as Castillejo Hunosta's argument for a concurrent sentence, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.