United States v. David Casas-Herrera

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 10-50107 · 2010-11-22 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal
Trial court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge: William Q. Hayes (district judge)
Outcome: affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area: criminal

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 22 2010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. 10-50107 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:06-cr-00810-WQH v. MEMORANDUM * DAVID CASAS-HERRERA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2010 ** Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

David Casas-Herrera appeals from the 10-month sentence imposed following revocation of his 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). Casas-Herrera contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court procedurally erred in failing to adequately address his mitigating arguments and explain the reasons for imposing a 10-month sentence. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). The record also reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, Casas-Herrera’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

2 10-50107