United States v. Vino Burnette, Jr.

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 10 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10402 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00529-EHC v. MEMORANDUM * VINO BURNETTE, Jr., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Vino Burnette, Jr. appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Burnette 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 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). adequately explain and identify sufficiently compelling reasons for the sentence and by misidentifying the applicable statutory maximum sentence. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained its reasons and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Burnette also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the 18-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); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993. AFFIRMED. 2 10-10402