United States v. Daniel Salinas-Vargas , 531 F. App'x 814 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 24 2013
    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. 12-50557
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:06-cr-00639-WQH
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    DANIEL SALINAS-VARGAS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 18, 2013 **
    Before:        TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Daniel Salinas-Vargas appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges the eight-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his
    supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    Salinas-Vargas contends that the revocation sentence was substantively
    *
    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).
    unreasonable because the district court failed to weigh properly the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e) sentencing factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
    imposing Salinas-Vargas’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51
    (2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e)
    sentencing factors, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See
    id.; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 
    587 F.3d 904
    , 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The
    weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the
    district court.”).
    Salinas-Vargas also contends that the supervised release revocation
    procedure under section 3583 violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Santana,
    
    526 F.3d 1257
    , 1262 (9th Cir. 2008), and United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 
    445 F.3d 1220
    , 1223-25 (9th Cir. 2006).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     12-50557
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-50557

Citation Numbers: 531 F. App'x 814

Judges: Tallman, Smith, Hurwitz

Filed Date: 6/24/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024