gno.law

United States v. Alejandro Sanchez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 10-50217 · 2011-01-05 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro SANCHEZ, A.K.A. Jose Alfredo Jimenez-Manzanares, A.K.A. Fernando Rodriguez-Masas, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
John A. Houston (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
criminal
Panel
Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Richard R. Clifton

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 05 2011

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. 10-50217 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01182-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose Alfredo Jimenez-Manzanares, a.k.a. Fernando Rodriguez-Masas, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Sanchez appeals from the ten-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). Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to:

(1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) expressly address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 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, 991-93 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).

Sanchez next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the ten- 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).

Sanchez last contends that the revocation of supervised release requires impermissible judicial fact-finding that violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2006), and United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 10-50217

Cites, in this corpus