United States v. Jose Martinez, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30087
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:17-cr-02023-LRS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE MARTINEZ, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Martinez, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his
supervised release and imposing a sentence of 12 months and one day in prison, to
be followed by a 12-month term of supervised release. Martinez challenges only
the 12-month term of supervision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
*
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).
and we affirm.
Martinez contends that the supervised release term is substantively
unreasonable because he is not amenable to supervision. The district court did not
abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record
reflects that the district court imposed the term of supervision to afford adequate
deterrence to Martinez’s criminal conduct and to protect the public from further
crimes in light of Martinez’s multiple supervised release violations and continued
non-compliance. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552
U.S at 51; 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 20-30087