Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard ALVAREZ-AYALA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-02
Citations: 540 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 12-50559
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard ALVAREZ-AYALA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 753–754

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard ALVAREZ-AYALA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50559.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
Assistant United States, Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Richard Alvarez-Ayala appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month and one day sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Alvarez-Ayala contends that the district court erred when it imposed a term of imprisonment for the purpose of rehabilitation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir.2011), and find none. The record reflects that the district court discussed its hope that Alvarez-Ayala would deal with his underlying substance abuse problems but did not " 'impose or lengthen [the custodial] sentence to enable [Alvarez-Ayala] to complete a treatment program or otherwise promote rehabilitation.'" See id. at 281 (quoting Tapia v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2392, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.