United States v. Vincent Beltran ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50014
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00964-ODW-2
v.
VINCENT NATHANIEL BELTRAN, AKA MEMORANDUM*
Smalls,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 5, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Vincent Nathaniel Beltran appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon the second revocation of his
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the
sentence but remand for the district court to correct a clerical error in the written
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judgment.
Beltran first contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing a
sentence based on clearly erroneous facts. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude
that there is none. The record does not support Beltran’s contention that the
district court relied on any clearly erroneous facts. See United States v. Graf, 610
F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical,
implausible, or without support in the record.”).
Beltran next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable
because it does not adequately reflect his mitigating circumstances, including his
personal history and background. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors
and the totality of the circumstances, including Beltran’s breach of the court’s trust
and his unwillingness to comply with the terms of supervision despite multiple
chances from the court. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Miqbel, 444
F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (at a revocation sentencing, it is appropriate for
the court to sanction a defendant’s breach of the court’s trust).
The parties agree, and the record shows, that the written judgment contains a
clerical error. At the sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Beltran to 12
2 20-50014
months of incarceration with no supervision to follow. The written judgment,
however, states that Beltran is sentenced to 12 months “with the supervision to
follow.” We remand to the district court to enter a corrected written judgment
consistent with the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v.
Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (remand for correction of the
written judgment is warranted when it conflicts with the oral pronouncement of
sentence because the oral pronouncement controls).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
3 20-50014