United States v. J. Vega-Arroyo

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 10-50482 · 2012-12-31 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. Jesus VEGA-ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Raymond C. Fisher

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 31 2012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. 10-50482 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-07029-WQH v. MEMORANDUM * J. JESUS VEGA-ARROYO, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 19, 2012 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

J. Jesus Vega-Arroyo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the consecutive eight-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). Vega-Arroyo contends that the district court plainly erred by failing to discuss the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors. The district court did not err, because it was not required to “tick off” all of the relevant sentencing factors, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and the record reflects that the court considered the relevant section 3583(e) sentencing factors.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

Vega-Arroyo also contends that the district court plainly erred by punishing him for the criminal conduct that resulted in the revocation of his supervised release. The record reflects that the district court properly sanctioned Vega-Arroyo for his breach of trust, and not for the criminal conduct underlying the revocation.

See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

2 10-50482