Court Opinion

ID: 4276738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-18 20:00:33.408426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:22.445963
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 18 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 17-50153

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:17-cr-07022-BAS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ARCENIO GARCIA-SOLORIO, a.k.a.
Pablo Dominguez, a.k.a. Arcenio Solorio,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                   Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before:      SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Arcenio Garcia-Solorio appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon his revocation of supervised

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Garcia-Solorio contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
to provide an adequate explanation for his sentence. Although a fuller explanation

is probably called for, reviewing for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-

Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), we conclude that Garcia-Solorio

has failed to show that any error affected his substantial rights. See United States

v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 551

U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Garcia-Solorio’s contention that the district court imposed

the sentence to punish him more harshly for the underlying offense is unsupported

by the record; if the court had wished to impose a harsher sentence for the new

immigration offense, it could simply have imposed a higher sentence in that case.

      Garcia-Solorio also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). The 14-month term is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Garcia-Solorio’s history, characteristics, and the need for adequate deterrence. See

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     17-50153