FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50123
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01607-L-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RODOLFO GAVILANES-OCARANZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 7, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: HAWKINS and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and SEDWICK,*** District
Judge.
Defendant Rodolfo Gavilanes-Ocaranza appeals the district court’s
revocation of supervised release and sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the
District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
Reviewing for plain error, United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir.
2005) (en banc), we affirm.1
1. The district court did not expose Defendant to double jeopardy in
violation of the Fifth Amendment. Supervised release is part of "the punishment
for the original crime, and it is the original sentence that is executed when the
defendant is returned to prison after a violation of the terms of his release." United
States v. Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d 788, 790 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Further, use of a prior conviction to enhance a sentence does not
constitute double jeopardy. Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 728 (1998).
2. The district court did not violate separation of powers principles when it
initiated supervised release revocation proceedings at the request of a probation
officer. "A district court has supervisory authority over and maintains a
relationship of trust with a defendant on supervised release." United States v.
Mejia-Sanchez, 172 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the court or
supervised release officials may initiate revocation proceedings without violating
separation of powers. Id.
1
We decide Defendant’s Sixth Amendment claims in an opinion published
this date.
2
3. The district court complied with procedural sentencing requirements by
stating the applicable Guideline range and referencing the history and
characteristics of the defendant, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and
the type and range of sentences recommended by the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(c) (listing sentencing requirements). Moreover, the district court properly
focused on the breach of trust between Defendant and the court in imposing the
additional 12 months’ imprisonment. United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173,
1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
3