United States v. Hilario Moreno-Garcia , 551 F. App'x 387 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30382
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00041-WFN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HILARIO MORENO-GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Hilario Moreno-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 27-month consecutive 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 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). Accordingly Moreno-
Garcia’s request for oral argument is denied.
Moreno-Garcia contends that the district court’s denial of his motions to
unseal the sentencing transcripts of his co-defendants violated his First
Amendment rights and impeded his ability to evaluate his sentence for disparities
with the sentences of his co-defendants. The district court did not abuse its
discretion because the record supports its conclusion that Moreno-Garcia’s interest
in investigating potential sentencing disparities did not outweigh the compelling
interest of maintaining the safety of his co-defendants and their families. See In re
Copley Press, Inc., 518 F.3d 1022, 1026, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2008).
Moreno-Garcia next argues that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to consider unwarranted sentencing disparities when it decided to run his
revocation sentence consecutively to the sentence for his underlying drug
conspiracy. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,
608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court considered
Moreno-Garcia’s sentencing disparity argument and found it unpersuasive because
Moreno-Garcia’s circumstances were unique.
Moreno-Garcia finally contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The Guidelines
contemplate that revocation sentences are to run consecutively to sentences for
2 12-30382
new offenses, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), and Moreno-Garcia’s sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of his breach of the court’s trust. See United
States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-30382