United States v. Ruben Gomez , 538 F. App'x 799 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                         AUG 19 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 12-10451
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:09-cr-02684-DCB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    RUBEN ANTHONY GOMEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding **
    Submitted August 14, 2013 ***
    Before:         SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Ruben Anthony Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge for
    the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    ***
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    Gomez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
    consider all of the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e) sentencing factors and by failing to explain
    adequately the reasons for imposing an 18-month sentence. We review for plain
    error, see United States v. Miqbel, 
    444 F.3d 1173
    , 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and find
    none. The record reflects that the district court considered the section 3583(e)
    sentencing factors, and adequately explained why an above-Guidelines sentence
    was warranted.
    Gomez also contends that the victim who addressed the court at the
    disposition hearing was only a “secondary victim” of Gomez’s underlying offense
    because he suffered no financial loss, that he should not have been permitted to
    address the court, and that the government should have disclosed that he suffered
    no financial loss. These contentions are unavailing. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3771
    (a)(4)
    and (e) (any person directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a
    federal crime is a crime victim who may address the district court in a supervised
    release proceeding). Furthermore, the record reflects that the district court was
    aware that the testifying victim suffered no financial loss.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    12-10451
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-10451

Citation Numbers: 538 F. App'x 799

Judges: Schroeder, Graber, Paez

Filed Date: 8/19/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024