United States v. David Navarro
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Barajas NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Pamela A. Rymer (author), Richard A. Paez, Mary M. McKeown
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2010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. 09-50230 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:04-cr-02276-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * DAVID BARAJAS NAVARRO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2010 ** Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
David Barajas Navarro appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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).
NC/Research Navarro contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to expressly calculate or consider the applicable Guidelines range. We review Navarro's contention for plain error. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). Navarro has not shown that the district court's failure to expressly calculate the applicable Guidelines range affected his substantial rights. The Guidelines range was set out in the petition for revocation of supervised release, the parties did not dispute that the range calculated in the petition was correct, and the court sentenced within it.
AFFIRMED.
NC/Research 2 09-50230