Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose RAMIREZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-21
Citations: 325 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: No. 09-50100
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose RAMIREZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose RAMIREZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50100.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2009.
May 21, 2009.
William Allen Hall, Jr., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jennifer Lynn Coon, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Carey Gorden, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without ofal argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Ramirez-Medina appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ramirez-Medina contends that the district court erred at sentencing by improperly relying upon factors not included in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and that the resulting sentence is unreasonable. We conclude that the district court did not err, see United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007), and that the sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Ramirez-Medina next contends that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the sentence was not supported by facts alleged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention fails. See United States v. Huertar-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1221 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.