Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro LOPEZ-AQUIRRE, a.k.a. Hector Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez-Aguirre, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-01
Citations: 667 F. App'x 917
Docket Number: No. 15-50219
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro LOPEZ-AQUIRRE, a.k.a. Hector Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez-Aguirre, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 917–918

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro LOPEZ-AQUIRRE, a.k.a. Hector Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez-Aguirre, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50219
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 01, 2016
Meghan Heesch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego County Office/Fed. Office Bldg, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sarah Rose Weinman, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, 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
Ramiro Lopez-Aquirre appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have ju risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez-Aquirre contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his mitigating arguments. We review for harmless error, see United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2011), and find none. The record reflects that the district court listened to Lopez-Aquirre's mitigating arguments. Moreover, the district court's reasons for imposing the sentence are apparent from the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ("[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole."). Nothing more was required. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.