United States v. Jose De La Torre-Ventura
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Manuel DE LA TORREVENTURA, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Edward Leavy (author), Smith, Consuelo M. Callahan
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50397 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04829-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE MANUEL DE LA TORRE- VENTURA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2015** Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel De La Torre-Ventura appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of probation. 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). De La Torre-Ventura contends that the district court imposed an above- Guidelines sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, namely, an assumption that he drove without a license or insurance and that he still had an alcohol problem and was a danger to the public. We agree that the record does not support the district court’s suggestion that De La Torre-Ventura did not have insurance or a license at the time he was pulled over for a traffic violation. However, the court did not impose sentence on this basis. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Furthermore, the court’s concern over De La Torre- Ventura’s alcohol problem and propensity of recidivism was supported by his history of driving under the influence.
De La Torre-Ventura next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing De La Torre-Ventura’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 18-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light the of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50397