gno.law

United States v. Michael Lizarraga

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50212 · 2010-03-02 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael LIZARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2010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, No. 09-50212 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:06-cr-00755-LAB v. MEMORANDUM * MICHAEL LIZARRAGA, 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.

Michael Lizarraga appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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).

NC/Research Lizarraga contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate and consider the applicable range under the Sentencing Guidelines. As Lizarraga concedes, this contention is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir. 2006). Applying this standard, the record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err at sentencing. See id.;

see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 983, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Lizarraga also contends, to preserve for further review, that the supervised release revocation procedure under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 violates the Sixth Amendment. As Lizarraga concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

NC/Research 2 09-50212

Cites, in this corpus