NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 14-10548
14-10549
Plaintiff - Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 2:14-cr-00035-JAD
v. 2:14-cr-00039-JAD
ANTONIO CERVANTES-PERALTA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Antonio Cervantes-Peralta appeals the
46-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in
the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 8-month sentence
*
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).
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cervantes-Peralta contends that the three-year term of supervised release is
substantively unreasonable in light of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). The district court did
not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679,
692 (9th Cir. 2012). The term is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need
for deterrence. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d at
692-93. Further, the court sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States
v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Cervantes-Peralta next contends that the aggregate custodial sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to impose fully
concurrent sentences. We find no abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The Guidelines state that a revocation sentence should
run consecutive to any sentence imposed for conduct that is the basis of the
revocation, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), and the court here made the sentences largely
concurrent. The sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-10548 & 14-10549