NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50249 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 8:13-cr-00034-AG-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE SANTIAGO RIVERA VALLE, AKA Jose Santiago Rivera, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jose Santiago Rivera Valle appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 13-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Valle contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to * 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). consider his mitigating arguments and relying on a clearly erroneous fact regarding his criminal history. The district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record shows that the district court considered Valle’s arguments for a shorter sentence and expressly discussed some of them. The court was not required to address specifically each of Valle’s arguments. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). The record does not show that the district court relied on a clearly erroneous fact when, in the course of explaining the basis for the sentence, it stated that past periods of incarceration had not fully deterred Valle and protected the community from his criminal activity. See United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763, 816 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating standard). Valle also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Valle’s immigration and criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 19-50249 19-50249 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. United States v. Jose Rivera Valle 13 January 2020 Criminal Unpublished 9edfef8f9de4942aed84af9cd1adb648ae9741f8
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals