United States v. Armando Lara , 692 F. App'x 936 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50375
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03559-JAH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ARMANDO LARA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Armando Lara appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
12-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lara contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to use the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Guidelines range as a starting point for its sentencing determination and by failing
to explain its sentencing decision adequately. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and
conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the court correctly calculated
the Guidelines range and used that range as the starting point and initial
benchmark. See Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345 (2016).
Moreover, the record shows that the court considered Lara’s mitigating arguments
and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the 12-month sentence. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Lara next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Lara’s sentence. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality
of the circumstances, including Lara’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50375