FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50431
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00514-JAH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BERNARDO BALDERAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Bernardo Balderas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Balderas contends that the district court erred by failing to explain its
*
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).
sentence sufficiently in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and to
respond adequately to his arguments in mitigation. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010),
and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Balderas’s arguments
in mitigation, and its explanation of the sentence imposed was legally adequate.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Balderas also contends that the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence by giving too much weight to his breach of trust and too
little weight to mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing Balderas’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The consecutive sentence at the low-end of the Guidelines range is substantively
reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e)
factors, including the fact that Balderas was convicted of importing
methamphetamine while he was on supervised release in connection with a prior
conviction for importing marijuana. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); Gall, 552 at 51;
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-50431