United States v. Luis Avila-Acosta
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Enrique AVILA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain (author), Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Leayy
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50368 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04107-GT v. MEMORANDUM* LUIS ENRIQUE AVILA-ACOSTA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Luis Enrique Avila-Acosta appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 21-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). Avila-Acosta contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his non-frivolous argument for leniency and by failing to explain adequately its sentence. We review for harmless error, see United States v. Munoz- Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), and find no error. The record reflects that the district court considered Avila-Acosta’s arguments for leniency, and the court’s explanation of its low-end Guidelines sentence was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50368