FILED
JUL 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10530
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00559-PGR
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DANIEL BRISENO-MORENO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Briseno-Moreno appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed
following the 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).
Briseno-Moreno contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by failing to
address his mitigating arguments with respect to the fact that the sentence was
greater than necessary due to the amount of time he had been incarcerated for the
offense underlying his revocation. We review for plain error. See United States v.
Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court did not plainly
err, as the record reflects that it considered the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing
factors, as well as Briseno-Moreno’s arguments in mitigation, but found the
circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the bottom of the
Guidelines range. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93, 995 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir.
2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-10530