NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50083
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01043-DMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PEDRO GOMEZ-PENA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Gomez-Pena appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gomez-Pena challenges the district court’s within-Guidelines sentence,
*
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).
claiming that the court’s consideration of his prior sentences was procedurally
erroneous because it improperly incorporated the concept of punishment into the
revocation sentence. We review for harmlessness, see United States v. Grissom,
525 F.3d 691, 696 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2008), and find no error. The district court
properly considered Gomez-Pena’s prior sentences as part of its evaluation of his
history and characteristics and the need for deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e);
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Gomez-Pena next argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to address his arguments for a shorter sentence due to his age and medical
conditions. We review for plain error, see United States v. Bonilla-Guizar, 729
F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir. 2013), and find none. The record reflects that the
district court considered Gomez-Pena’s mitigating arguments and adequately
explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
Finally, Gomez-Pena contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable as a result of the alleged procedural errors. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing Gomez-Pena’s sentence. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the top of the Guidelines range is
2 14-50083
substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section
3583(e) factors, including the need for deterrence and Gomez-Pena’s breach of the
district court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-50083