gno.law

United States v. Daniel Salinas-Vargas

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 12-50557 · 2013-06-24 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel SALINAS-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Richard C. Tallman (author), Smith, Andrew D. Hurwitz

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2013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. 12-50557 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:06-cr-00639-WQH v. MEMORANDUM * DANIEL SALINAS-VARGAS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 18, 2013 ** Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Salinas-Vargas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the eight-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salinas-Vargas contends that the revocation sentence was substantively * 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). unreasonable because the district court failed to weigh properly the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e) sentencing factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Salinas-Vargas’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.; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

Salinas-Vargas also contends that the supervised release revocation procedure under section 3583 violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008), and United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1223-25 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-50557

Cites, in this corpus