United States v. Jose Estrada , 360 F. App'x 880 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 30 2009
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 09-10113
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:03-CR-01298-FRZ
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    JOSE LUIS ESTRADA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 15, 2009 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Jose Luis Estrada appeals from his 21-month sentence imposed following
    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).
    DAT/Research
    Estrada contends that his sentence is unreasonable because, among other
    things, the district court failed to adequately consider the fact that his original
    sentence may have been based on a miscalculated Guidelines range. This
    contention is belied by the record. See United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 992-
    93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); United States v. Gerace, 
    997 F.2d 1293
    , 1295 (9th
    Cir. 1993) (“An appeal challenging a probation revocation proceeding is not the
    proper avenue through which to attack the validity of the original sentence”).
    Estrada also argues that the court failed to adequately explain why it was
    ordering the 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation to run subsequent to
    another federal sentence. The record reflects that the district court did not err in
    this regard. See United States v. Fifield, 
    432 F.3d 1056
    , 1066 (9th Cir. 2005).
    To the extent that Estrada challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
    sentence, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable, under the totality of the
    circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51-52 (2007).
    AFFIRMED.
    DAT/Research                                2                                     09-10113
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-10113

Citation Numbers: 360 F. App'x 880

Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, Fisher

Filed Date: 12/30/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024