United States v. Mario Anguiano-Silva

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-50305 · 2013-05-21 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario ANGUIANO-SILVA, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Edward Leavy (author), Thomas, Mary H. Murguia

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2013

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. 12-50305 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04850-WQH v. MEMORANDUM * MARIO ANGUIANO-SILVA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 14, 2013 ** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Mario Anguiano-Silva appeals from the 14-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). Anguiano-Silva contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his argument that a lower sentence was justified in light of the length of the sentence imposed for his new 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2010), and find none. The district court explained that a lower sentence would not adequately reflect the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors or appropriately sanction Anguiano-Silva for his breach of the court’s trust.

Anguiano-Silva also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Anguiano- Silva’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e) sentencing factors, the below- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2 12-50305