United States v. Alejandro Sanchez

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 05 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50217 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01182-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose Alfredo Jimenez-Manzanares, a.k.a. Fernando Rodriguez-Masas, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Sanchez appeals from the ten-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) expressly address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); and (3) explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). Sanchez next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the ten- month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007). Sanchez last contends that the revocation of supervised release requires impermissible judicial fact-finding that violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2006), and United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED. 2 10-50217