United States v. Alejandro Sanchez , 407 F. App'x 259 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 05 2011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. 10-50217
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01182-JAH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose
Alfredo Jimenez-Manzanares, a.k.a.
Fernando Rodriguez-Masas,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Sanchez appeals from the ten-month sentence imposed upon
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).
Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to:
(1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) expressly address the relevant
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); and (3) explain
the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the district court did
not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010).
Sanchez next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the ten-
month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007).
Sanchez last contends that the revocation of supervised release requires
impermissible judicial fact-finding that violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v.
Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2006), and United States v. Santana,
526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50217