NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50364
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00504-DSF-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ARTEMIO GONZALEZ ANDRADE, AKA
Artemioi Gonzalez Andrade, AKA Artemio
Gonzalez, AKA Temo, AKA Youngster,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Artemio Gonzalez Andrade appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Andrade first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
address his mitigating arguments and adequately explain the sentence, and by
imposing the sentence to punish him for the conduct underlying the revocation.
We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none.
The record reflects that the district court considered Andrade’s arguments in
favor of a non-custodial sentence and adequately explained its reasons for
imposing the within-Guidelines sentence, including the need to protect the
community and deter Andrade’s criminal conduct. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the record does not support
Andrade’s contention that the district court impermissibly imposed the sentence to
punish his revocation conduct. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062
(9th Cir. 2007) (seriousness of offense underlying the revocation “may be
considered to a lesser degree as part of the criminal history of the violator”).
Andrade next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of several mitigating factors, including his new dedication to religion, his
positive performance in custody, his familial reasons for reentering the United
States, and his overstated criminal history. The district court did not abuse its
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 24-month
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing
2 19-50364
factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Appellant’s unopposed request for judicial notice, and appellee’s unopposed
request for judicial notice, are GRANTED.
Appellee’s motion to withdraw its excerpts of record is GRANTED. The
Clerk will strike the supplemental excerpts of record at Docket Entry No. 30.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-50364