United States v. David Murillo-Betancourt
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MURILLO-BETANCOURT, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Joseph J. Farris (author), Jay S. Bybee, Edward Leavy
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011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. 10-50297 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:04-cr-01994-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * DAVID MURILLO-BETANCOURT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
David Murillo-Betancourt appeals from the 24-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). Murillo-Betancourt contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to expressly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, and by failing to keep the Guidelines range “in mind” during sentencing. We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008), and find none.
The record reflects that the district court relied on the correct Guidelines range, and intended to sentence Murillo-Betancourt at the high end of that range.
Murillo-Betancourt also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Contrary to Murillo-Betancourt’s contention, the record demonstrates that the district court considered his mitigation arguments and did not rely on any perceived sentencing leniency “as a primary basis for [the] revocation sentence.” United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
Moreover, the sentence was reasonable in light of the court’s emphasis on the need for deterrence and Murillo-Betancourt’s continued breach of trust. See U.S.S.G.
Ch.7, Pt. A(3)(b); Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182 (“[A]t a revocation sentencing, the court may appropriately sanction a violator for his breach of trust[.]”) (internal quotations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50297