Court Opinion

ID: 9785040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:29.217809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:29.844623
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 30 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-30190

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00204-RMP-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JAVIER VARGAS CONTRERAS,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Washington
                Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Javier Vargas Contreras appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 11-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his

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

      Contreras contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on a

      *
             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).
clearly erroneous finding of fact related to his minor son. This argument is not

supported by the record, which reflects that the court expressed reasonable

skepticism—based on other evidence in the record—about counsel’s

representations regarding Contreras’s relationship with his son. Contrary to

Contreras’s argument, the court did not make any findings as to the veracity of a

witness’s testimony regarding the son’s suicidal ideation, nor did it overlook or

mischaracterize that witness’s testimony.

      Contreras also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in

light of his mitigating circumstances, including parental obligations, travel

difficulties, poverty, and substance abuse issues. The district court did not abuse

its discretion by concluding that these circumstances did not warrant a lesser

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the

high end of the Guidelines, imposed after the district court held Contreras’s

violations in abeyance on three occasions to permit him to come into compliance

with the terms of his supervised release and following his admission to 17

violations, is substantively reasonable under the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and

the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob,

485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction

the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust). We do not consider Contreras’s

policy-based challenge to the Guidelines, which he did not raise in the district

                                            2                                    22-30190
court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                        3                              22-30190