FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50187
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00840-DMS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ULISES LOPEZ-ROSAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Ulises Lopez-Rosas appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the five-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).
Lopez-Rosas contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
respond to his argument, based on U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1, for why he should receive a
three-month concurrent sentence. This contention is belied by the record. The
district court addressed the argument in a manner that is adequate for meaningful
appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc); see also United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).
In addition, the below-Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable
in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including the fact that Lopez-Rosas breached the court’s trust by committing a
felony immigration offense while he was on supervised release in connection with
a prior felony immigration offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); U.S.S.G. §
7B1.3(f) (advising that a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release
should be consecutive to any sentence imposed for the conduct that is the basis for
the revocation); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that the primary
reason for imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release is to sanction
the defendant’s breach of trust, and holding that “a district court may properly look
to and consider the conduct underlying the revocation as one of the many acts
contributing to the severity of the violator’s breach of trust”).
2
AFFIRMED.
3