Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcos SANCHEZ-VENEGAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-23
Citations: 590 F. App'x 709
Docket Number: No. 13-50558
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcos SANCHEZ-VENEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PAEZ and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 590
Pages: 709–710

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcos SANCHEZ-VENEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50558.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 21, 2014.
Filed Jan. 23, 2015.
Jose Castillo, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tommy Hai Vu, Esquire, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PAEZ and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.
The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designátion.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Marcos Sanchez-Venegas appeals his sentence upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Sanchez-Venegas contends that the district court violated his right of allocution and constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and due process when it threatened to impose the statutory maximum sentence if defense counsel continued to advocate for a lower sentence. The district court ultimately imposed the sentence it tentatively announced prior to threatening Sanchez-Venegas with a greater sentence. Sanchez-Venegas did not object at the time of sentencing, but the nature of the district court's comments constitutes "exceptional circumstances," and so we review the legality of the sentence de novo. United States v. Echavarria-Escobar, 270 F.3d 1265, 1267-68 (9th Cir.2001).
The district court's limitation on defense counsel's argument at sentencing does not amount to a violation of due process or Sanchez-Venegas's right to effective assistance of counsel. See Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 862-863, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975). Sanchez-Venegas was also given the opportunity to allocute. Sanchez-Venegas's allocution was uninterrupted, and the district court specifically addressed Sanchez-Venegas's allocution before imposing the sentence. The district court's comments did not deprive Sanchez-Venegas of the right of allocution. United States v. Daniels, 760 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir.2014).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.