United States v. Jesus Aguila-Flores

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50310 · 2010-06-17 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus AGUILA-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Thomas, Fletcher

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2010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. 09-50310 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cr-01269-GT v. MEMORANDUM * JESUS AGUILA-FLORES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gordon Thompson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 25, 2010 ** Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Aguila-Flores appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Aguila-Flores contends that the district court committed procedural error by, * 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). among other things, failing to explain the reasons underlying the sentence. The record indicates that the district court’s sentencing explanation was adequate under the circumstances, and the court did not otherwise procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Aguila-Flores further contends that the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Aguila-Flores’

within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

AFFIRMED.

2 09-50310