FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-10282
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:01-CR-00324-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ALEJANDRO OCHOA-ROCHA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Ochoa-Rocha appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Ochoa-Rocha contends that the district court improperly relied on factors
*
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).
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), such as the need to reflect the seriousness of the
revocation offense, to justify its sentence. The record indicates that the district
court properly considered the factors enumerated at 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). See
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (revocation
sentence may not be based primarily on severity of revocation offense, but court
may consider the violator’s criminal history, including the violation offense, in its
section 3583(e) analysis). Furthermore, although Ochoa-Rocha’s 24-month
sentence represents a significant departure from the recommended sentence range,
we cannot say that the sentence was substantively unreasonable on the record here.
See id. at 1063 (where defendant violates supervised release by committing same
offense for which he was placed on supervised release, “greater sanctions may be
required to deter future criminal activity”); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-10282