Court Opinion

ID: 2650893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-01-25 01:02:27.765249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:54.326413
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 24 2014

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-50124

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04099-IEG

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
PONCIANO DIAZ-SOSA, a.k.a.
Guillermo Ortega Gonzalez,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of California
                    Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted January 21, 2014**

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

       Ponciano Diaz-Sosa appeals from the district court’s judgment and

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

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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Diaz-Sosa contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

pronounce the Guidelines range prior to imposing the sentence. We review for

plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2010), and find none. Diaz-Sosa has not shown a reasonable probability that he

would have received a different sentence had the district court reiterated the

applicable Guidelines range immediately before pronouncing the below-Guidelines

sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

      Diaz-Sosa also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing

to address his mitigation arguments. The record shows the district court heard

Diaz-Sosa’s mitigation arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. See

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                      13-50124