Court Opinion

ID: 9389990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 17:01:10.062336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.949270
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-10274

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:20-cr-00072-ADA-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ALFREDO MARTINEZ,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                     Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Alfredo Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 9-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have

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

      Martinez’s supervised release was revoked following his admission to

      *
             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).
unauthorized travel to Florida. He contends that the district court procedurally

erred by imposing the sentence based on clearly erroneous facts regarding a

separate trip to Mexico. Although evidence presented after the sentencing hearing

showed that the court was mistaken as to whether Martinez had provided the

requisite documentation regarding the Mexico trip, the court’s error was harmless.

The record shows that the court selected the 9-month sentence based on the

circumstances of Martinez’s unauthorized travel to Florida—the conduct

supporting the revocation—as well as other instances in which Martinez failed to

take responsibility for his actions. On this record, we conclude that the district

court did not “choose [the] sentence based on clearly erroneous facts.” United

States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

      Martinez also contends that the district court ignored certain nonfrivolous

mitigating arguments. Because he did not object on this basis below, we review

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

Cir. 2010). The district court did not plainly err because, although it did not

address each of Martinez’s mitigating arguments, it considered them,

acknowledged his efforts “to get [his] life back in order,” and sufficiently

explained the sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review. See United States

v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2008).

      Finally, Martinez’s argument regarding the cumulative effect of the claimed

                                          2                                       22-10274
errors is unavailing.

      AFFIRMED.

                        3   22-10274