NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30062
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00235-EJL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHRISTOPHER JESSE TORRES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Jesse Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Torres contends that the district court procedurally erred by miscalculating
*
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).
the Guidelines range, failing to explain adequately the sentence, and relying on
improper sentencing factors. Contrary to Torres’s contention, the district court
correctly calculated the Guidelines range because it properly concluded that his
state criminal conviction was a Grade B violation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2);
United States v. Jones, 696 F.3d 932, 935-37 (9th Cir. 2012) (court properly
treated conduct as Grade B violation where it was punishable by a term of
imprisonment exceeding one year due to application of enhancement).
Furthermore, the district court’s explanation of the sentence was legally sufficient.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Finally,
the record reflects that the district court considered only the proper 8 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) sentencing factors, including Torres’s criminal history and the need to
protect the public. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir.
2007).
Torres next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
the district court imposed it to run consecutive to his sentence for the state criminal
conviction which formed the basis of the violation. The district court did not abuse
its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The consecutive
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) factors and the
totality of the circumstances, including Torres’s extensive criminal history, his
failure to be deterred by prior sentences, and the need to protect the public. See
2 16-30062
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-30062