Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Edward MURILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-24
Citations: 467 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 11-50261
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Edward MURILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 580–580

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Edward MURILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50261.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
David Daniel Leshner, Assistant U.S., Thomas Blanchard Snyder, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lauren Cusick, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAYY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Henry Edward Murillo appeals from the 30-month term of supervised release imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Murillo contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary, and the district court relied on impermissible factors in its sentencing decision. Taken in context, the district court's reference to "punishment" concerned sanctions for Murillo's supervised release violation, not for the underlying state crime. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, Murillo's 30-month term of supervised release, which is below the statutory maximum, is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.