United States v. Miguel Hernandez

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10660 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00403-KJM v. MEMORANDUM* MIGUEL ANGEL HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Miguel Angel Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the sentence of 12 months and one day imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Hernandez contends that the district court erred by failing to explain the * 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 and its reasons for rejecting his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered all of Hernandez’s arguments and adequately explained the sentence to permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (upon revocation, a district court may sanction the defendant for his breach of the court’s trust) AFFIRMED. 2 12-10660