United States v. Fernando Vega-Sanchez

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50637 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00184-GT v. MEMORANDUM * FERNANDO VEGA-SANCHEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gordon Thompson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 29, 2010 ** Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Vega-Sanchez appeals from the six-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). Vega-Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) meaningfully consider and address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e);

and (3) explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-95 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 600 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that there was no plain error where “the district court listened to [defendant’s] arguments, stated that it had reviewed the criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range”).

Vega-Sanchez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the six- month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 09-50637