FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2011
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. 10-30326
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00126-FVS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
OHARA M. MOLINERO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Ohara M. Molinero appeals from the 78-month prison sentence and ten-year
term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
distribution and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
*
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).
affirm.
Molinero contends that the district court violated 18 U.S.C. § 3552(d) and
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e) by failing to grant him sufficient time to
review the presentence report. This contention is unavailing because Molinero
failed to establish that any technical error committed by the district court in not
strictly complying with these provisions affected his substantial rights. See United
States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 552-54 (9th Cir. 2008).
Molinero next contends that the district court violated his due process rights
by not affording him a second opportunity to address the court regarding his prior
felony harassment conviction. This contention lacks merit because the record
reflects that the court personally addressed Molinero, and provided him and his
counsel ample opportunity to present information regarding the harassment
conviction. See United States v. Mack, 200 F.3d 653, 658 (9th Cir. 2000).
Finally, Molinero contends that the district court’s imposition of a ten-year
term of supervised release was unreasonable and disproportionately severe
punishment. Under the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, the ten-year supervised release term is reasonable. See United
States v. Cope, 527 F.3d 944, 952 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-30326