Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vinicio Antonio JIMENEZ-DIAZ, a.k.a. Vinicio Jimenez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-24
Citations: 592 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 14-10153
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vinicio Antonio JIMENEZ-DIAZ, a.k.a. Vinicio Jimenez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 592
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vinicio Antonio JIMENEZ-DIAZ, a.k.a. Vinicio Jimenez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10153.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
Filed Feb. 24, 2015.
Serra Marie Tsethlikai, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter B. Keller, Esquire, Law Office of Peter B. Keller, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Vinicio Antonio Jimenez-Diaz appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the six-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jimenez-Diaz contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to give adequate consideration to his request that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release run concurrently to the sentence imposed for Jimenez-Diaz's new criminal conviction. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Jimenez-Diaz's argument and sufficiently explained the sentence. See 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.