gno.law

United States v. Javier Moreno-Mendoza

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-50100 · 2012-08-15 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier MORENO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Sandra S. Ikuta, Marsha S. Berzon

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2012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. 12-50100 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00625-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * JAVIER MORENO-MENDOZA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 8, 2012 ** Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Javier Moreno-Mendoza appeals from the 6-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. App. P. 34(a)(2). Moreno-Mendoza contends that the district court procedurally erred because it failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, failed to consider his arguments in mitigation, and failed adequately to explain his sentence. The district court listened to Moreno-Mendoza’s mitigating arguments and then imposed a below-Guidelines sentence. It did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).

Moreno-Mendoza also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to properly consider the sentencing factors. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Moreno-Mendoza’s contention that section 3583(e)(3) is unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-50100

Cites, in this corpus