NOT FOR PUBLICATION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