FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10098
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00379-LJO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DAVID ESCOBAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
David Escobar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
36-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Escobar argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
*
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).
consider his mitigating arguments and statements at allocution, and instead
imposing a predetermined sentence on the basis of a prior promise. Because
Escobar did not raise this objection before the district court, we review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. The court properly considered the need to sanction Escobar
for violating the terms of supervision and breaching the court’s trust. See United
States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, the record reflects
that the court reviewed Escobar’s sentencing materials, listened to his mitigating
arguments and statements at allocution, and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
sentencing factors.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-10098