United States v. Fernando Ruiz-Guzman , 693 F. App'x 705 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30172
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-cr-02056-EFS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FERNANDO RUIZ-GUZMAN, a.k.a.
Gerardo Torres Ruiz-Guzman, a.k.a.
Gerardo Torres-Guzman,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Ruiz-Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 19-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 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).
Ruiz-Guzman contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of the 41-month sentence he received for the criminal offense underlying the
revocation and other mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence, which
was ordered to run consecutively to the 41-month sentence, is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including Ruiz-Guzman’s criminal history. See U.S.S.G.
§ 7B1.3(f) (term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of supervised
release shall run consecutively to sentence defendant is already serving); United
States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he violator should be
punished both for breaching the court’s trust and for the new criminal conduct, as
each act is separately and distinctly offensive.”). Contrary to Ruiz-Guzman’s
contention, the court’s discussion of his criminal history was proper, see 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e), and did not reflect any reliance on unadmitted conduct.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30172