Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert ENRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-19
Citations: 619 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 15-50196
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert ENRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert ENRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50196.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
Filed Oct. 19, 2015.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Scott Paetty, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Ronald L. Cheng, Assistant U.S., O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ashfaq Gani Chowdhury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ashwini Shrikrishna Mate, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, 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
Robert Enriquez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Enriquez first contends that the district court violated due process and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 82.1(b)(2) when it heard argument regarding unproven conduct. Because the record does not show that the allegations of unproven conduct were demonstrably made the basis for the sentence, we find no reversible error. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir.2009).
Enriquez next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the Guidelines range and explain why it was imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. We review for plain error. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2009). The district court erred when it failed to calculate the Guidelines range. See id. at 1105. However, the record reflects that the court was aware of the Guidelines range and its explanation of the sentence was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Thus, Enri-quez has failed to show a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008). Moreover, the record does not support Enriquez's contention that the district court may have considered impermissible sentencing factors.
Finally, Enriquez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Enriquez's repeated breaches of the court's trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586 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.