FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 18 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 16-50219
16-50220
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 3:13-cr-03504-L
v. 3:16-cr-00140-L
GILBERTO LOPEZ-ROMO, a.k.a.
Romero Gilberto Lopez, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Gilberto Lopez-Romo challenges the 18-
month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed
alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 12-month
*
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).
consecutive sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez-Romo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
adequately address his mitigating arguments in favor of lower sentences for his
illegal reentry conviction and violation of supervised release. The district court did
not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2010). The record demonstrates that the district court listened to Lopez-
Romo’s arguments, identified what the court believed to be the only legitimate
mitigating factor, and weighed that factor against aggravating factors before
imposing the within-Guidelines sentences in both cases. The district court’s
explanation was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Lopez-Romo next argues that the district court impermissibly based the
revocation sentence on the need to punish his underlying criminal conduct. The
record does not support Lopez-Romo’s argument, and instead, demonstrates that
the district court permissibly based the sentence on Lopez-Romo’s breach of the
court’s trust, his history and characteristics, and the need for deterrence. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50219 & 16-50220