Court Opinion

ID: 2782258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-02-25 23:02:01.636071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:01:57.097055
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FEB 25 2015

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-50368

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04107-GT

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
LUIS ENRIQUE AVILA-ACOSTA,

               Defendant - Appellant.

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

                           Submitted February 17, 2015**

Before:        O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Luis Enrique Avila-Acosta appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 21-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).
      Avila-Acosta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

respond to his non-frivolous argument for leniency and by failing to explain

adequately its sentence. We review for harmless error, see United States v. Munoz-

Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), and find no

error. The record reflects that the district court considered Avila-Acosta’s

arguments for leniency, and the court’s explanation of its low-end Guidelines

sentence was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    14-50368