NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50603
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cr-01547-WQH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OSCAR SOLIS-JARAMILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Solis-Jaramillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the seven-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Solis-Jaramillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
*
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).
respond to his sentencing arguments and by failing to explain adequately the
sentence and why it was imposed to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for
Solis-Jaramillo’s new criminal conviction. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and find none. The record
reflects that the court considered Solis-Jaramillo’s arguments and sufficiently
explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
Solis-Jaramillo next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
in light of his history and characteristics. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Solis-Jaramillo’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
the need to afford adequate deterrence and to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-50603