FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50026
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-02986-GT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CARLOS RAMOS-SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Ramos-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 14-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ramos-Sanchez first contends that the district court erred by failing to (i)
*
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).
independently calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, (ii) consider the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, other than deterrence, and (iii)
explain adequately the sentence imposed. We disagree. The record reflects that
the district court adopted the correctly-calculated Guidelines range provided by the
probation officer, adequately considered the applicable section 3553(a) sentencing
factors, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Ramos-Sanchez also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ramos-
Sanchez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 14-
month consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of
the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors. See U.S.S.G.
§ 7B1.3(f); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50026