Opinion
No. 09-50637.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed July 1, 2010.
Adam Lorne Braverman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Trenton Packer, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Gordon Thompson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00184-GT.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Francisco Vega-Sanchez appeals from the six-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vega-Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) meaningfully consider and address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); and (3) explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-95 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 600 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that there was no plain error where "the district court listened to [defendant's] arguments, stated that it had reviewed the criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range").
Vega-Sanchez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the six-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 SCt. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).