Court Opinion

ID: 2832860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-01 21:01:12.000282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:22.121828
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             SEP 01 2015

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-50303

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:14-cr-07038-GT

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MIGUEL GUTIERREZ-PADILLA, a.k.a.
Ruben Bahena, a.k.a. Miguel Gutierrez
Padilla, a.k.a. Miguel Padilla Gutierrez,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                  Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted August 25, 2015**

Before:        McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges

      Miguel Gutierrez-Padilla appeals from the consecutive 18-month sentence

imposed upon 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).
      Gutierrez-Padilla argues that the district court denied him his right of

allocution before sentencing him on his violation of supervised release. The record

belies his claim. During a consolidated hearing, the court invited Gutierrez-Padilla

to speak before imposing sentence on his new conviction for illegal reentry and his

violation of supervised release. Thus, Gutierrez-Padilla was given “an opportunity

to make a statement and present any information in mitigation,” Fed. R. Crim. P.

32.1(b)(2)(E), before sentence was imposed. See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d
661, 666 (9th Cir. 1998).

      Next, Gutierrez-Padilla alleges that the court failed to calculate his

Guidelines range. However, the record shows that the court adopted the correctly-

calculated Guidelines range proposed by the probation officer.

      Finally, Gutierrez-Padilla contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gutierrez-

Padilla’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The low-end

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing

factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                      14-50303