gno.law

United States v. Jose Mendoza

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 15-50505 · 2016-12-21 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Hugo MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
criminal
Panel
William T. Wallace (author), Raymond C. Fisher, Edward Leavy

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50505 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01980-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE HUGO MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jose Hugo Mendoza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mendoza contends that the district court erred by improperly basing the * 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). sentence on the need to punish him for the underlying offense and the court’s belief that Mendoza’s sentence for that offense was too low. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2010), and hold there is none. The record reflects that the district court based its decision on only proper 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, including the need for deterrence, Mendoza’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust, and the need to protect the public. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.

2007). Moreover, Mendoza’s sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including his criminal history and prior violations of supervised release. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50505

Cites, in this corpus