Court Opinion

ID: 2650479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-01-23 01:00:59.415803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:45.489517
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 22 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 13-10237

                Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:12-cr-50233-DCB

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
JORGE GARCIA-PANTOJA, a.k.a. Jorge
Garcia-Pantoia,

                Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                    Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding**

                             Submitted January 21, 2014***

Before:         CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Jorge Garcia-Pantoja appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The Honorable Fred L. Van Sickle, Senior United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Garcia-Pantoja contends that the district court erred by ordering his

revocation sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for illegal reentry. He

argues that U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) creates a presumption that the court impose a

concurrent sentence when a deportable alien is sentenced for violating supervised

release. We disagree. Section 5D1.1(c) concerns the imposition of a term of

supervised release, not the sentence to be imposed upon revocation. See U.S.S.G.

§ 5D1.1(c) (2011). Contrary to Garcia-Pantoja’s argument, the Guidelines

recommend that the court impose a consecutive sentence for a supervised release

violation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).

      Garcia-Pantoja next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because it creates unwarranted sentencing disparities. Contrary to his claim,

Garcia-Pantoja is not similarly situated to defendants who are not serving terms of

supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

Garcia-Pantoja’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In

light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing

factors, the consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                       13-10237