United States v. Edward Lopez, Jr.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward LOPEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Stephen S. Trott (author), Gould, Johnnie B. Rawlinson
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2011
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. 11-50033 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:90-cr-01089-IEG v. MEMORANDUM * EDWARD LOPEZ, Jr., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2011 ** Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Edward Lopez, Jr., appeals from the 12-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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2). Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to expressly calculate the Guidelines range. Lopez has not shown that the district court’s failure to expressly calculate the Guidelines range affected his substantial rights, particularly where the Violation Sentencing Summary correctly calculated the Guidelines range. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.
2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-50033