United States v. Richard Carrillo , 500 F. App'x 670 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10295
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:01-cr-00136-KJD-
LRL-2
v.
RICHARD CARRILLO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District Judge.***
Carrillo appeals his sentence imposed following his admitted violation of
multiple terms of supervised release. Because Carrillo’s counsel did not object to
*
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).
***
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
the sentence he now appeals, we review for plain error. United States v. Waknine,
543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 2008). In so doing, we do not discern any error in the
challenged proceedings, much less error that was “plain” or that affected Carrillo’s
“substantial rights.” Id. Because the methamphetamine he possessed was
individually packaged in six different bags, the evidence supports an inference --
unchallenged in the district court -- that the possession of the illegal substance was
for sale. United States v. Martinez, 967 F.2d 1343, 1345-46 (9th Cir. 1992). This
violation constituted a felony offense in Nevada and supports a Grade A violation.
These circumstances support in turn the sentence imposed of 18 months
imprisonment with an additional term of 42 months of supervised release.
As to Carrillo’s allegations of errors in the judgment of conviction, the
matter is remanded to the district court to revisit only (1) whether the written
judgment accurately conforms to the court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence
and the court’s intentions, and (2) whether a typographical error exists with respect
to the amount of the fine.
AFFIRMED IN PART. REMANDED for the limited purpose of revisiting
the written judgment of conviction.
2