Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel BOJORQUEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-22
Citations: 516 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 12-10378
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel BOJORQUEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 642–642

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel BOJORQUEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10378.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 22, 2013.
Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alina Maria Shell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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
Victor Manuel Bojorquez-Alvarez appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bojorquez-Alvarez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the fact that, at the time of sentencing, he had already served an 18-month sentence for the immigration offense that triggered his revocation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Bojorquez-Alvarez's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 12-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of Bojorquez-Alvarez's failure to be deterred and breach of the court's trust. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.