United States v. Alejandro Ochoa-Rocha , 385 F. App'x 620 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 17 2010
    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. 09-10282
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:01-CR-00324-SRB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ALEJANDRO OCHOA-ROCHA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Alejandro Ochoa-Rocha appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon
    revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    ,
    and we affirm.
    Ochoa-Rocha contends that the district court improperly relied on factors
    *
    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).
    under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(2)(A), such as the need to reflect the seriousness of the
    revocation offense, to justify its sentence. The record indicates that the district
    court properly considered the factors enumerated at 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e). See
    United States v. Simtob, 
    485 F.3d 1058
    , 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (revocation
    sentence may not be based primarily on severity of revocation offense, but court
    may consider the violator’s criminal history, including the violation offense, in its
    section 3583(e) analysis). Furthermore, although Ochoa-Rocha’s 24-month
    sentence represents a significant departure from the recommended sentence range,
    we cannot say that the sentence was substantively unreasonable on the record here.
    See 
    id. at 1063
     (where defendant violates supervised release by committing same
    offense for which he was placed on supervised release, “greater sanctions may be
    required to deter future criminal activity”); United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    ,
    993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     09-10282
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-10282

Citation Numbers: 385 F. App'x 620

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/17/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024