United States v. Adalberto Rivera

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50430
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05135-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ADALBERTO RIVERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Adalberto Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 30-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rivera contends that the district court’s imposition of the maximum term of
*
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).
supervised release is illogical, punitive, and substantively unreasonable given the
court’s belief that Rivera is not amenable to supervision. We review for abuse of
discretion, see United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 887 (9th Cir. 2012), and find
none. The record belies Rivera’s contention that the district court determined he is
not amenable to supervision. Moreover, the 30-month term of supervised release is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality
of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United
States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A violation of the conditions
of supervised release does not obviate the need for further supervision, but rather
confirms the judgment that supervision was necessary.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50430