FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50196
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00392-R
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT ENRIQUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Robert Enriquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Enriquez first contends that the district court violated due process and
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2) when it heard argument regarding
unproven conduct. Because the record does not show that the allegations of
unproven conduct were demonstrably made the basis for the sentence, we find no
reversible error. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th
Cir. 2009).
Enriquez next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
calculate the Guidelines range and explain why it was imposing an above-
Guidelines sentence. We review for plain error. See United States v. Hammons,
558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court erred when it failed to
calculate the Guidelines range. See id. at 1105. However, the record reflects that
the court was aware of the Guidelines range and its explanation of the sentence was
sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Thus, Enriquez has failed to show a reasonable probability that he would have
received a different sentence absent the error. See United States v. Dallman, 533
F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the record does not support Enriquez’s
contention that the district court may have considered impermissible sentencing
factors.
2 15-50196
Finally, Enriquez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Enriquez’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See Gall, 522 U.S. at 51; United
States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-50196