United States v. Ramiro Lopez-Aquirre
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50219 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-07131-GT v. MEMORANDUM* RAMIRO LOPEZ-AQUIRRE, a.k.a. Hector Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez-Aguirre, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Lopez-Aquirre appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
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). Lopez-Aquirre contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his mitigating arguments. We review for harmless error, see United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2011), and find none. The record reflects that the district court listened to Lopez-Aquirre’s mitigating arguments. Moreover, the district court’s reasons for imposing the sentence are apparent from the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”). Nothing more was required.
See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-50219