United States v. Raymond Militante Rebaya
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Militante REBAYA, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Appeal from
- McGrew v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2009-05-27) — the district court's order on this docket in the record
- Panel
- Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Gould, Smith
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 01 2010
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, Nos. 09-50007 & 09-50034 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:08-cr-01831-LAB 3:03-cr-02667-NAJ v. RAYMOND MILITANTE REBAYA, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 16, 2010 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Raymond Militante Rebaya appeals in No. 09- 50007 from the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of illegal aliens and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
* 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).
JC/Research § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), and (v)(II), and in No. 09-50034 from the 18-month consecutive sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In No. 09-50007, Rebaya contends the district court procedurally erred by (1) imposing a sentence without properly explaining and considering all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (2) failing to justify and explain why an above-guidelines sentence was necessary. The record belies this contention.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc);
see also id. at 993 (appellate courts are to give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance).
In No. 09-50034, Rebaya contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide an explanation for the 18-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. This contention fails because an adequate explanation may be inferred from the “record as a whole.” See id. at 992.
AFFIRMED.
JC/Research 2 09-50007 & 09-50034