NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 18 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 09-30083
Nos. 09-30084
Plaintiff - Appellee,
D.C. No. CR-08-102-GF-SEH
v. D.C. No. CR-08-146-GF-SEH
SALVADOR ORDONEZ-
MALDONADO,
Defendant - Appellant. MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 7, 2009**
Portland, Oregon
Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Salvador Ordonez-Maldonado appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to suppress, the sentence the district court imposed for
Ordonez-Maldonado’s drug offense, and the sentence the district court imposed
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
after revoking Ordonez-Maldonado’s term of supervised released. Because the
district court did not clearly err in finding that police searched Ordonez-
Maldonado’s apartment after receiving a warrant – rather than before, as Ordonez-
Maldonado claims – and because both sentences are reasonable, we affirm.
We review factual findings underlying a district court’s decision to deny a
motion to suppress for clear error. United States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d 710, 714 (9th
Cir. 2003). We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion and “may not
reverse just because we think a different sentence is appropriate.” United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). “[O]nly a procedurally
erroneous or substantively unreasonable sentence will be set aside.” Id. The
sentence imposed after revocation of a term of supervised release is likewise
reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184
(9th Cir. 2003).
The district court did not clearly err in finding that police searched Ordonez-
Maldonado’s apartment after they obtained a warrant authorizing them to do so.
Evidence introduced below, including testimony from three independent witnesses
and computerized police dispatch records, adequately supports the district court’s
factual findings adopting the government’s timeline of events. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s denial of Ordonez-Maldonado’s motion to suppress.
2
We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Ordonez-Maldonado. Ordonez-Maldonado does not dispute that the district court
correctly calculated the guideline range for both sentences, and sentenced
Ordonez-Maldonado within or below that range in both instances. The record also
reflects that the district court permitted Ordonez-Maldonado to argue for an
appropriate sentence, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and
understood that the guideline range is not presumptively reasonable. The record
further reflects that the court selected the sentences it imposed based on the
particular facts of this case, including Ordonez-Maldonado’s extensive criminal
history, and provided a reasoned explanation for its decision. Nothing in the
record suggests that Ordonez-Maldonado received an erroneous or unreasonable
sentence. Carty, 520 F.3d at 991-92. Therefore, we affirm both sentences.
AFFIRMED.
3