NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50268
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00315-BEN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
IVAN MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ivan Martinez-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon his revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Martinez-Ramirez contends that the district court procedurally erred and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
violated his due process rights by failing to notify him at sentencing for the
underlying offense that he could receive an above-Guidelines sentence for
violating the terms of his supervised release. The record does not support this
contention. At his sentencing on his underlying offense, Martinez-Ramirez
received notice of all of the conditions of his supervised release and the district
court informed him of the possible penalties for violating those conditions.
Martinez-Ramirez next argues that the district court did not explain the
upward variance adequately. This argument is also belied by the record, which
reflects that the court sufficiently explained its reasons for the sentence by
reference to appropriate considerations. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Martinez-Ramirez finally claims that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the one-third upward variance from the Guidelines range
was not warranted. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and
2 16-50268
the totality of the circumstances, including Martinez-Ramirez’s lengthy period of
noncompliance. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-50268