United States v. Enrique Alday-Lopez ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011
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. 10-10334
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-01359-FJM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ENRIQUE ALDAY-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Enrique Alday-Lopez appeals from the district court’s order revoking his
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Alday-Lopez contends that the district court erred under United States v.
Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2006), by improperly considering the need for
*
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).
punishment. This contention is belied by the record.
Alday-Lopez also contends that the district court erred by providing an
insufficiently compelling justification for the sentence. The district court did not
commit procedural error. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th
Cir. 2007) (noting that deterrence is one consideration under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(B) and holding that “[t]he seriousness of the offense underlying the
revocation, though not a focal point of the inquiry, may be considered to a lesser
degree as part of the criminal history of the violator”). Moreover, in light of the
totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors
applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the sentence is substantively reasonable.
See Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1181-82 (explaining the factors to consider under 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-10334