gno.law

United States v. Rogelio Acevedo-Becerra

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-50276 · 2014-02-26 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rogelio ACEVEDO-BECERRA, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Ferdinand F. Fernandez

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50276 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04559-IEG v. MEMORANDUM* ROGELIO ACEVEDO-BECERRA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Rogelio Acevedo-Becerra appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the seven-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Acevedo-Becerra contends that the district court erred by failing to consider * 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). all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and to respond adequately to his arguments in mitigation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Acevedo-Becerra’s arguments in mitigation, and its explanation of the sentence imposed was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

Acevedo-Becerra also contends that the imposition of a custodial sentence upon revocation of supervised release violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50276

Cites, in this corpus