United States v. Carlos Lobo

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 17-50044 · 2018-01-19 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos U. LOBO, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Stephen R. Reinhardt (author), Stephen S. Trott, Andrew D. Hurwitz

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50044 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-04127-WQH v. MEMORANDUM * CARLOS U. LOBO, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Carlos U. Lobo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lobo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately why it rejected his mitigating arguments. The district court did not * 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). plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2010). The record reflects that the district court considered Lobo’s mitigating arguments, but concluded that a consecutive sentence was warranted in light of the need to sanction Lobo’s breach of the district court’s trust and Lobo’s history and characteristics. This explanation was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, Lobo has not shown a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different if the district court had provided further explanation. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-50044