FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 02 2013
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. 12-10484
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:10-cr-02695-DCB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MISAEL MANJARREZ-FELIX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Misael Manjarrez-Felix appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the four-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Manjarrez-Felix contends that the district court erred by ordering his
*
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).
revocation sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for illegal reentry. He
argues that U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) creates a presumption that the court impose a
concurrent sentence when a deportable alien is sentenced for violating supervised
release. We disagree. Section 5D1.1(c) concerns the imposition of a term of
supervised release, not the sentence to be imposed upon revocation. See U.S.S.G.
§ 5D1.1(c) (2011). Contrary to Manjarrez-Felix’s argument, the Guidelines
recommend that the court impose a consecutive sentence for a supervised release
violation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).
Manjarrez-Felix next contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because it creates unwarranted sentencing disparities. Contrary to his
claim, Manjarrez-Felix is not similarly situated to defendants who are not serving
terms of supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing Manjarrez-Felix’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
sentencing factors, the consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-10484