United States v. Adalberto Rivera ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50214
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05135-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ADALBERTO RIVERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Adalberto Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 12-month custodial sentence and 18-month term of supervised release 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).
Rivera contends that the custodial portion of his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court already accounted for the alleged cause of
his violations—his drug addiction—by imposing drug treatment as a condition of
supervised release. He further contends that the term of supervised release is
substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s belief that he is not
amenable to supervision. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Rivera’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-
Guidelines custodial term and 18-month term of supervised release are
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality
of the circumstances, including the need to deter Rivera from future violations.
See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, contrary to Rivera’s contention, the record
reflects that the district court imposed the additional term of supervision in order to
provide him with rehabilitative services that he requested, not to punish him. See
United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A violation of the
conditions of supervised release does not obviate the need for further supervision,
but rather confirms the judgment that supervision was necessary.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-50214