gno.law

United States v. Mario Valencia-Ochoa

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 16-50007 · 2016-08-01 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario VALENCIA-OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Mary M. Schroeder (author), Consuelo M. Callahan, William C. Canby, Jr.

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 01 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50007 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02345-CAB v. MEMORANDUM* MARIO VALENCIA-OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Mario Valencia-Ochoa appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Valencia-Ochoa contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), which provides that a district court may revoke supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release, is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As Valencia-Ochoa concedes, this claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-50007

Cites, in this corpus