Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Militante REBAYA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-01
Citations: 368 F. App'x 770
Docket Number: Nos. 09-50007, 09-50034
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Militante REBAYA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 770–770

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Militante REBAYA, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 09-50007, 09-50034.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 1, 2010.
David L. Katz, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Raymond Militante Rebaya appeals in No. 09-50007 from the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of illegal aliens and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii), and (v)(II), and in No. 09-50034 from the 18-month consecutive sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In No. 09-50007, Rebaya contends the district court procedurally erred by (1) imposing a sentence without properly explaining and considering all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (2) failing to justify and explain why an above-guidelines sentence was necessary. The record belies this contention. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also id. at 993 (appellate courts are to give due deference to the district court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance).
In No. 09-50034, Rebaya contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide an explanation for the 18-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. This contention fails because an adequate explanation may be inferred from the "record as a whole." See id. at 992.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.