United States v. Henry Murillo

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50261 · 2012-01-24 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Edward MURILLO, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Leayy (author), Consuelo M. Callahan, Richard C. Tallman

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2012

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. 11-50261 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00117-JLS v. MEMORANDUM * HENRY EDWARD MURILLO, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Henry Edward Murillo appeals from the 30-month term of supervised release imposed following the revocation of his 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). Murillo contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary, and the district court relied on impermissible factors in its sentencing decision. Taken in context, the district court’s reference to “punishment” concerned sanctions for Murillo’s supervised release violation, not for the underlying state crime. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e) sentencing factors, Murillo’s 30-month term of supervised release, which is below the statutory maximum, is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50261