Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward LOPEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-27
Citations: 455 F. App'x 787
Docket Number: No. 11-50033
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Edward LOPEZ, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 787–787

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Edward LOPEZ, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-50033.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
U.S. Atty. Cas, Esquire, Bruce R. Cas-tetter, Assistant U.S., 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: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Edward Lopez, Jr., appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to expressly calculate the Guidelines range. Lopez has not shown that the district court's failure to expressly calculate the Guidelines range affected his substantial rights, particularly where the Violation Sentencing Summary correctly calculated the Guidelines range. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.