FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10250
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00293-MCE
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARTIN GALLEGOS-GONZALES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Martin Gallegos-Gonzales appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gallegos-Gonzales contends that the district court erred by ordering his
*
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).
revocation sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for illegal reentry because
the goals of deterrence and protection of the public are adequately served by his
new reentry prosecution. He argues that the district court did not explain the need
for a consecutive sentence and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable
because it creates unwarranted sentencing disparities. The record reflects that the
district court explained that a consecutive sentence was warranted in light of
Gallegos-Gonzales’s breach of the court’s trust and extensive criminal and
immigration history. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th
Cir. 2007). Contrary to his claim, Gallegos-Gonzales is not similarly situated to
defendants who are not serving terms of supervised release. Moreover, the
Guidelines contemplate that revocation sentences are to run consecutively to
sentences for new offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1063.
The district court’s decision impose a consecutive sentence was not an abuse of
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-10250