United States v. Gustavo Araujo-Rios

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 09 2010
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. 09-50017
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:06-CR-01712-L-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GUSTAVO ARAUJO-RIOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Argued and Submitted March 1, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: CANBY and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, **
District Judge.
Gustavo Araujo-Rios appeals from the ten-month sentence imposed
following revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
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 Honorable John R. Tunheim, US District Judge for the District of
Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Araujo-Rios contends that the district court erred by failing to advise him of
his right under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2) to contest the
allegations against him and have a hearing at which he could present evidence or
question any adverse witness. We decline Araujo-Rios’s invitation to read United
States v. Stocks, 104 F.3d 308 (9th Cir. 1997), as requiring Rule 32.1(b)(2)
advisements at his revocation hearing. See United States v. Segal, 549 F.2d 1293,
1298-1300 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1272 (9th
Cir. 1989) (noting that this court has refused to extend such procedural protections
to proceedings less formal than state and federal criminal trials). Araujo-Rios was
afforded his Rule 32.1(b)(2) rights. Araujo-Rios was given written notice of the
allegations against him, in which the evidence against him was disclosed. He
appeared at a revocation hearing, at which he was represented by counsel, and
during which he had the opportunity to present evidence and question any adverse
witness, though he declined to do so.
Araujo-Rios also contends that the district court erred by failing to: (1)
calculate the Guideline range; (2) address the probation report’s sentencing
recommendation; (3) meaningfully address the 18 U.S.C § 3553(a) sentencing
factors; and (4) provide any explanation for the sentence. The record indicates that
2
any error — if indeed there was error — did not affect Araujo-Rios’s substantial
rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008).
The government’s motion for judicial notice is granted. See Fed. R. Evid.
201.
AFFIRMED.
3