gno.law

United States v. Jose Perez-Lopez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50170 · 2009-11-18 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Pilar PEREZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Atsushi W. Tashima, Stephen S. Trott

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 18 2009

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. 09-50170 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00603-RTB v. JOSE PILAR PEREZ-LOPEZ, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2009 ** Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Jose Pilar Perez-Lopez appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed following revocation of the supervised release term he was serving following a guilty-plea conviction to being a deported alien found in the United States. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JC/Research have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez-Lopez contends the district court committed procedural error by:

(1) relying on clearly erroneous facts; (2) imposing a sentence without providing an explanation sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review; and (3) failing to consider the revocation factors in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 3553(a). These contentions are belied by the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Perez-Lopez also contends the district court committed procedural error by failing to calculate the sentencing guidelines range and by ignoring the parsimony principle. Perez-Lopez has not demonstrated that any error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008).

Finally, Perez-Lopez contends the supervised release revocation procedures set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 2006). We reject Perez-Lopez’s contention that Huerta-Pimental is no longer good law in light of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007). See United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.

2008).

AFFIRMED.

JC/Research 2 09-50170

Cites, in this corpus